Why James Madison Trembled at the Prospect of An Article V Convention

By Joanna Martin, J.D.

January 5, 2024

The following outline shows the absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments; their false claims & assurances about the Convention process; their misrepresentations of Court Opinions; their misrepresentations of whom they really serve, and their faked “popular support”.

Since everything they tell you is false; the question arises, “What’s their real agenda?”

I’ll show you.  And then you will see why James Madison “trembled” at the prospect of an Article V Convention.[1]

I.

The absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments

  1. They claim we need a Convention so we can get Amendments to “limit the power & jurisdiction of the federal government”.

But our Constitution already limits the federal government to a few enumerated powers!

Everyone ignores it. The federal government was able to usurp hundreds of powers not granted by our Constitution because state & local governments, hospitals, businesses, universities, farmers, individual citizens, & everybody else collaborated with the usurpations by taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read & obeyed:  downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers! And stop taking the money!

  1. Their proposed Amendments increase the powers of the federal government by granting new powers, legalizing powers already usurped, or stripping States of their existing powers. E.g.,
  • HERE are the Nightmare Amendments from “COS’s” first mock convention.
  • To see how six of Mark Levin’s “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE. [His other amendments are just as bad.]
  • To see how the “regulation freedom amendment” increases federal power and makes gun control by the federal government constitutional, see The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster.

No Amendment can make people obey the Constitution:  When the federal government usurps powers not granted – and everybody accepts federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs, all of them are ignoring the existing constitutional limits on federal power.

State Legislators who are concerned about federal spending and federal control should stop taking federal money to implement unconstitutional federal programs in their State!

II.

The Convention pushers’ false claims & assurances about the Convention Process

  1. They claim George Mason said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, we need a Convention to amend the Constitution.
  • Mason never said that! The Framers agreed the purpose of Amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.
  • Mason’s concern was that Congress might not consent to Amendments needed to correct defects in the Constitution. HERE is what Mason really said.
  1. Who judges and counts the applications? They assure State Legislators that Congress “can’t” call a Convention until Congress gets 34 applications asking for the same Amendment & that Delegates “can’t” do anything except consider Amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

But our Constitution doesn’t say that – they made it up!

And meanwhile, their supporters in Congress are filing legislation for Congress to count all applications together – regardless of the Amendment specified in State Legislature’s application.

  1. Who decides how Delegates will be selected? They assure State Legislators that they will select & control the Delegates.

But our Constitution doesn’t say that – they made it up!

We don’t know what the Congress of today would decide….

III.

The Convention pushers’ misrepresentations of the holdings of federal court opinions

  1. The “Convention of States” organization (COS) distributes this flyer to State Legislators. COS misrepresents what the Courts said!

Here’s my response showing what the Courts actually held.

IV.

The Convention pushers’ false claims about whom they really serve & their faked “popular support”

  1. Mark Meckler tells State Legislators that his organizations are funded by grandmas sending him $5.00 checks out of their paltry monthly incomes (with little notes attached saying they wish they could give more). But Dark Money—Not the Grassroots—Is Behind the Convention of States Organizations (COS) proves that almost 2/3 of the money driving Meckler’s effort to get State Legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention under Article V of the US Constitution is coming from major donors annually giving Meckler’s organizations $5,000 to $2,000,000 each over the latest 3 years of reporting available.  Why are multi-billionaires trying to get their hands on our Constitution?

The Convention pushers are spending millions of dollars every year to buy a Convention:  Meckler’s “Convention of States Action” organization alone spent $10,689,465.00 for 2022 [link under “Core Financials” & the 2022 Tax Form 990 for Convention of States Action [item 18 on page 1]. 

No organization with donors like that & with two Board Members (Robert P. George & C. Boyden Gray) who are also Members of The Council on Foreign Relations is a “grassroots” organization.

  1. COS claims to have massive grassroots support for an Article V Convention.  However, there is considerable evidence that their alleged support is faked:
  • This Phony Petitions & Polls flyer tells of how, during 2018, two Idaho Legislators reported that the COS Petitions they received were digitally “signed” by some constituents who, when contacted, said they never signed.  Representative Priscilla Giddings called this practice “hi-tech fraud”.  Representative Dorothy Moon called it “dirty tricks”.
  • In this video, Representative Pepper Ottman of Wyoming tells of how during 2023, she received hundreds of emails from alleged supporters of SJR 11 (“COS’s” application for a convention).  Since the names and addresses of [alleged] senders were provided, she contacted the alleged senders and they said they didn’t send the emails!
  • In this video, Representative Sarah Penn, also of Wyoming, recounts of how she received emails in support of SJR 11 from “constituents” – but when she contacted them, they responded with comments such as, “I don’t know what this is – I didn’t send it – what is COS?”
  • In this video, a South Dakota Senator Exposes COS Deceit and Fake Petitions Including From His Own Wife!

V.

So what’s the real agenda?

The Globalists want a new Constitution which moves the United States into global government.

  1. The North American Union: During 2005, President George W. Bush, the Prime Minister of Canada, & the President of Mexico hammered out a Plan for a North American Community.  A Task Force for the Council on Foreign Relations wrote it up – here’s their Report.  It provides for the political integration of Canada, the US, & Mexico.  A Parliament is set up over the three Members and their military & police forces are combined.

          The USMCA Trade Agreement:  This so-called “Trade Agreement” between the United States, Mexico and Canada was approved by the United States during the Trump Administration.  It is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement.  It provides for the economic & financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.[2]

The Declaration of North America:  The Biden Administration is also pushing the North American Community:  On Jan 10, 2023, Biden, the Prime Minister of Canada, & the President of Mexico issued the Declaration of North America. It’s a summary of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the North American Community.

On December 7, 2023, the United Nations’ “Human Rights Committee” issued it’s Final Report [click on “PDF”], wherein it praises the Biden Administration for its progress in complying with the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[3] by promoting abortion & transgenderism.  The Report goes on to demand that the Covenant be applied in the United States’ “domestic legal order at the federal, state, local and territorial levels” (5).  It objects to State Laws restricting abortion for women & girls (29).  It objects to State Laws restricting voting by mail & ballot collection, and to “burdensome” voter ID requirements (64-65).  It demands background checks for all private acquisitions of firearms & ammunition, and red flag confiscations.  It demands bans on “assault rifles” & “high-capacity” magazines (35).  It demands laws at the federal, state, local and territorial levels preventing schools from prohibiting biological boys who identify as girls from using girls’ bathrooms or competing in girls’ sports (24-25).  It demands that the United States rectify past discriminations against Muslims seeking entry into the US (16-17).  See Alex Newman’s article, UN Report Condemns U.S., Demanding Speech Control, Constitution Change & More Abortion.

  1. The above is antithetical to our existing Constitution. The structure of the global government is already in place and its policies are now being carried out[4]; but it is not yet “legal“.  They have no legal authority to force the federal, State and local governments to submit to their demands.  So they need a new Constitution for the United States which moves us into the global government and strips the States and The People of their Rights and retained powers.  Under the new system, we will have only the rights “granted” to us by government.[5]

To get a new Constitution, they need Congress to call an Article V Convention.  A Convention isn’t about getting Amendments to our existing Constitution – that’s just the pretext for inducing State Legislatures to apply to Congress for Congress to call a convention. James Madison expressly warned that those who secretly wish for a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting Amendments”.  He said that here, at endnote 3.  Beware of false friends and paid endorsers who are selling you into slavery.

  1. A Constitution which formally implements the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report hasn’t been released. But several other proposed Constitutions have been released:
  1. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, 4 US Supreme Court Justices & other legal scholars warn against an Article V Convention. They understand that a Convention would likely result in the imposition of a new Constitution – after all, we have already gotten rid of one Constitution at an “Amendments Convention” & replaced it with a new one.  Here’s what happened:

“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”

  • But the Delegates ignored the instructions of Congress and similar instructions from the States, and wrote a new Constitution (our present Constitution of 1787) which created a new federal government.

And the new Constitution had an easier mode of ratification: it would be ratified when only 9 of the then 13 States approved it (Art. VII); whereas Amendments to the Articles of Confederation had to be approved by the Continental Congress & all of the then 13 States (Art. 13).

In Federalist 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a delegate to the Federal “Amendments Convention” of 1787, invoked the Declaration of Independence as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation and writing a new Constitution which created a new Form of gov’t.  Go here to see where Madison said it.

VI.

 The Remedy our Framers actually advised:

  1. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that because the States created the federal government [when they ratified the Constitution], the States are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other; and that when the fed gov’t usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the fed gov’t. The refusal to go along with unconstitutional acts is the remedy they advised when the fed gov’t violates the Constitution.

This is not a mere “constitutional right” created by our Constitution of 1787 – this is the God-given natural right of self-defense which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution.

VII.

Please Rescind your States’ existing applications for Congress to call a Convention

  1. Here is an archived & unofficial list of applications for a Convention already submitted by State Legislatures to Congress. Under the method of counting applications proposed by COS supporters in Congress, any one of the applications filed by your State Legislature could be counted by Congress to make your State one of the 34 States applying for a Convention.

Please protect our Constitution and promptly rescind all of your State’s applications.  Heed the warnings, stand firm against a Convention, and do not let us be moved into the New World Order.

© 2023 Joanna Martin – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Joanna Martin, JD.: publiushuldah@gmail.com

E-Mail Joanna Martin, JD.: publiushuldah@twlakes.net

Endnotes:

  1. Here is where Madison said he “trembled” at the prospect of another Convention.
  2. For details on the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and the North American Union, refer to the three articles posted here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/usmca-trade-agreement/
  3. The United States ratified the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992 under President George Bush, Sr.
  4. E.g., the immigration laws passed by the US Congress have long been ignored. The US government has been taking its orders respecting immigration from the United Nations. That’s why our Borders are wide open. The globalists are right now in the process of imposing their new monetary system on the United States.  They are right now demanding that State & local governments submit to the UN’s perverse agenda respecting “human rights”.
  5. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that Rights come from God and that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of securing the rights God gave us.

Compare that with the new conception of “rights” pushed in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

  • Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
  • Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government; and that “the will of the people” is expressed by those whom they elect to public office (let that sink in).
  • Article 29 provides that our rights & freedoms can’t ever be exercised “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (let that sink in – the UN is the ultimate Authority – not God).
  1. Note well: Any new Constitution will have its own mode of ratification.  The mode of ratification for our US Constitution of 1787 is set forth at Article VII thereof.  The mode of ratification of the proposed Newstates Constitution is set forth at Article XII, Sec. 1 thereof.  Convention pushers are not telling the Truth when they assure you that “anything which comes out of a Convention must be approved by 3/4 of the States before it can be effective“.

Contact Joanna Martin, J.D. at publiushuldah@gmail.com  &  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/  January 2024



The Real Agenda Behind Red-Flag Laws: Confiscations and Gun Controls

By Joanna Martin, J.D.

August 4, 2023

When a person makes threats about killing others, the only constitutionally acceptable course of action is to treat that particular person in accordance with the existing criminal laws of the State.  To instead subject everyone to red flag confiscations shows that the real agenda is to disarm “The People”.  But the US Constitution doesn’t permit that.

State Legislatures have no constitutional authority to enact into Law whatever a majority of them may happen to believe is a good idea.  To the contrary, State Legislatures are mere “creatures” of the State Constitution which created them – and it is that Document, together with various provisions of the US Constitution, which define and limit their authority to make laws. State Legislatures have only limited constitutional authority to make laws restricting arms.[1]

A Transcendent Principle of our Land has always been that The People have the right to keep and bear arms.  The purpose of this Right is – as James Madison recognizes in Federalist No. 46 – to protect us from government.

And because the leading cause of unnatural death in this world, particularly since the beginning of the 20th Century, is murder by government – democide; we must have the ability to defend ourselves from government.

Before governments can murder great numbers of people, they must disarm them first:  As lawyer and philosopher Stephen P. Halbrook shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, the NAZIS used gun control to disarm and repress their enemies and consolidate power, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless.

That’s what gun control and red flag confiscations is really about.   It has nothing to do with protecting children.  People who want to protect children oppose abortion, the injection of children with experimental substances, and sex change surgery on children.

  1. Global government, eugenics, and “sustainable development”

Powerful people seek to move the United States into global government – the New World Order – the North American Union – the Great Reset.  But the American People oppose global government.

Yuval Noah Harari of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset says you and I are “useless”, “meaningless”, and “worthless”.  They don’t need us anymore.  Prince Philip of England said during 1988 that if he were reincarnated, he “would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”

Kelleigh Nelson shows that work to rid the World of “inferior” or superfluous people has been going on in America:  America’s Medical Guinea Pigs, Depopulation and Eugenics, Part One;  Blood Lust: Covid Vaccines, and Culling the Population, Part Two;  and The Demonic Carnage of Vaccines, Part Three.

The United Nations claims that population growth interferes with “sustainable development”.  Pro-abortion US Vice-President Kamala Harris wants to reduce the population so “the children” can have cleaner air and water.  Former US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to destroy the farming industry because “Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world. And we can’t get to net zero—we don’t get this job done—unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution.”

How will Americans eat when the farms are shut down?  There will be hundreds of millions of starving Americans. The globalists must disarm us before they cut off our food supply.

Their “final solution” to the above “problems” is to kill us.  But first, they must disarm us.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee isn’t the only “conservative” who is pushing for gun control and red flag confiscations.

President Trump said, respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second“, thus showing his total lack of understanding of the concept of “due process”.

Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, who has been on Mark Meckler’s “Convention of States” Legal Advisory Board since its inception during 2014, has already co-authored a new Constitution which provides constitutional authority for gun control and red flag confiscations.[2]

Professor George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  The CFR seeks to move the United States into global government – the North American Union.  Americans don’t want to be moved into the North American Union. So we must be rendered powerless to prevent it [link].

  1. What is “due process”?

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

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution says:

“…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law…”

The 14th Amendment says at § 1:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

But US Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019”, provided that if a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill put the burden of proof on the Respondent!  For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

All versions of red flag legislation are based on taking peoples’ property away from them based on a Judge’s speculation that they might in the future commit a crime with the gun.  As in Tom Cruz’s movie, “Minority Report”, we can be accused of and punished for gun crimes we haven’t committed.

And even if Respondents in a red flag proceedings were afforded their due process right of a trial before their peers before their arms were confiscated; I am unaware of any State Constitution which permits a person to be disarmed for the reason that others speculate that the person might in the future commit a crime with the gun.  Certainly, the US Constitution forbids such pre-crime confiscations.

Red flag laws are “pre-crime confiscations”.  They violate the due process clauses of the US Constitution; as well as a host of other federal and state constitutional provisions.

  1. Don’t invite political abuse of psychiatry into America

Advocates of red flag confiscations may claim that they only want to confiscate guns from mentally ill people.  And since you are not mentally ill, red flag laws won’t affect you, right?

Not so.  Just as the US Department of Justice denounced as “domestic terrorists“ Moms who spoke out at School Board Meetings against porn in the schools, mask mandates, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory; red flag laws which purport to permit seizure only from mentally ill persons will result in application of the definition of “mentally ill” which prevailed in the Soviet Union.  There, political opposition or dissent was defined as a psychiatric problem.

  1. We have a moral problem, not a gun problem

I began first grade during 1949.  At that time, the Ten Commandments were posted in public schools. I could already read and saw every day the Commandments, “Thou shall not kill” – “Thou shall not steal” – “Thou shall not bear false witness”. We had prayers and Bible readings.  America was a safe place:  people didn’t lock their doors and children played outdoors unsupervised by adults.

But beginning in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the US Supreme Court commenced its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools.  During 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court banned the posting of The Ten Commandments in the public schools.

Even though these Opinions were clearly unconstitutional [link], State Legislatures failed to do their Duty to nullify these unconstitutional decisions.  They should have passed laws directing their public school teachers and administrators to ignore the Opinions.[3] 

But State Legislatures failed to act.  So God’s Moral Laws were replaced by Moral Relativism – where moral judgments and values are not based on Transcendent and objective Principles [e.g., The Ten Commandments] but on one’s personal feelings and desires.  THAT is the root problem in our Land – We forgot God.  See also Ideas  That Are Destroying America by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero.

© 2023 Joanna Martin – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Joanna Martin, JD.: publiushuldah@gmail.com

E-Mail Joanna Martin, JD.: publiushuldah@twlakes.net

Endnotes:

[1]  In this paper, I focus on “due process” and red flag confiscations.  In a subsequent paper, I will show how extremely limited is the constitutional authority of the Tennessee Legislature to restrict arms.

[2]  Robert P. George, a law professor, apparently understands that our existing US Constitution prohibits state or federal gun controls and red flag confiscations; and that a new federal Constitution is needed before we can be disarmed.

[3]  Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton pointed out since the States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution; they are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other.  And when the federal government usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the federal government.  See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.



A Massive Transfer of Power Over Children, From Parents to Governments

By Joanna Martin, J.D.

March 3, 2023

Parents’ Statutory “Bill of Rights”

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”  —Ayn Rand

“I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.” —Martin Luther

On February 2 of this year (2023), the North Carolina Senate passed SB 49, which bears the deceptive title of “Parents’ Bill of Rights”.  It transfers massive open-ended powers over children to the federal and state governments and to the “governing body” of the school.  The Parents are “granted” enumerated rights[1] and every such right is qualified by exceptions which may be carved out at any time by the various levels of governments.  This is a profoundly evil piece of work; and if it passes the House, Parents in North Carolina with minor children would be wise to consider leaving the State and taking their children with them.

Civilizations – and Nations – arise on one belief system – and collapse on another.  Let us begin by looking at the belief system embraced during our Founding Era respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government.  Then we will look at the belief system embraced from the time the first Colonists settled our Country respecting the parent child relation until the rise, during the 1840s, of public education.[2]  Then I will show you the belief system respecting “Rights” which is being pushed on us by those who seek to strip us of our God given rights.

  1. Our Founding Principles respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government

Our Declaration of Independence is the fundamental act of our Founding, and part of the “organic law” – foundational law – of our Land.  There we recognized the existence of self-evident Truths – Truths which come from above – which have a transcendent origin – which were woven in to the Fabric of Reality by the Creator God.  The five Truths we recognized in our Declaration are:

  1. All men are created equal. This is our formal acknowledgment that we have a Creator; and we are equal before The Law.
  2. Rights have a transcendent origin – they come from the Creator God. Thus, our Rights have existed since the Dawn of Creation.
  3. The purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us. We thus declared that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.
  4. People create governments. The first three words of our Constitution, “We The People”, were the most radical ever written to establish a government.  With those three words, we repudiated the European model where political power originates with the king or the State.[3] Under the European model, people are subjects to the Absolute Will of civil government.   But our Constitution was founded on the Principle that … The People are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority”.[4]
  5. And when a government becomes destructive of our God given rights, we have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.   

These are our Founding Principles.  By invoking these Truths, we acknowledged that Rights have a transcendent origin; and further, that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.

  1. The Parent-Child Relation ordained by God

The Creator God who, as acknowledged by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children.  Parents are to:

  • Provide for their children’s physical needs: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
  • Provide for the education and moral instruction of their children:  Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5  & 3:15-17; and they are to
  • Discipline their children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.

Nowhere in the Bible does God endow civil government with power over the education and upbringing of children.  Those responsibilities are vested in Parents.

  1. The new Belief system: the United Nation’s Concept of Rights – qualified and conditional grants from governments to serve the government’s interests

For well over 100 years, our Founding Principles have been under attack.  We’ve been conditioned to believe that Rights come from Constitutions, from Legislatures, or from the Courts; that governments may serve their own interests instead of securing God-given rights; and to accept the authoritarian model where the People are subjects of the governments.

SB 49 adopts the new conception of “rights” illustrated in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Here is a quick overview of that Declaration:

  • Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
  • Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government.
  • Article 29 provides that our rights & freedoms can’t ever be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

So!  In this brave new world of the United Nations, rights come from government; governments may do whatever “the people” want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us – and the Will of the People is expressed by those whom they elect to public office]; and rights are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

The United Nations doesn’t acknowledge any authority superior to itself.  Contrast that with our Declaration of Independence which reflects the Principle that governments are God’s agents to carry out God’s Will respecting the Rights God gave us.  

  1. North Carolina’s SB 49

The bill is single-spaced and a little over 10 pages long. It’s visually difficult to read. Who would bother reading beyond the Short Title, which is “Parents’ Bill of Rights”?   Surely, the 23 Sponsors didn’t bother to read it; and surely the 29 Republican Senators who voted for it didn’t read it.  No one with a conscience could read this and support it.

In a nutshell, what SB 49 does is to transfer power over children from parents to governments.  Parents’ “rights” consist of the privilege of being notified of decisions made respecting their children by governments; and they are granted certain rights to challenge some of the decisions.

Here are some of the provisions of SB 49:

  • Page 1, lines 27-30 grant to parents the right to enroll their child in any school choice option “available to the parent” for which the child is “eligible by law”. So parents can’t homeschool unless the Legislature permits it.
  • Page 1, lines 31-33: the federal government will decide which education records kept on their child parents may see.
  • Page 1, lines 34-35 thru Page 2, lines 1- 9: Parents have the right to make health care decisions for their child unless the State Legislature or the federal government say they can’t make the decisions.
  • Page 2, lines 10-31 grant to parents the right to prohibit the creation, sharing, or storage of a biometric scan, the blood or DNA, or a video or voice recording of their child, unless the government decides to collect and store this data.
  • Page 2, lines 32-35 grant to Parents the right to be notified if a State employee suspects that a crime has been committed against their child – unless the government decides parents shouldn’t be notified.
  • Page 2, lines 38-46 list some of the things parents are not “authorized” to do, such as “abusing the child”. The State Legislature will decide what constitutes “abusing the child”.  When I was in junior high school, it was my responsibility to take care of the chickens:  I cleaned their coops, cleaned and filled their water buckets, feed them and gathered the eggs.  Was that “child abuse”?  I expect there is no shortage of loons who declare that having children do farm chores constitutes “child abuse”.
  • Page 3 informs parents that they are in “partnership” with the public schools and grants to parents the right to “participate” in their child’s education.
  • Page 4, lines 1-34 grant to parents the “legal rights” to withhold consent for their child’s participation in reproductive health programs; to seek exemptions from immunization requirements; to review standardized test results; to inspect school textbooks; to opt out of certain “data collections” for their child; to participate in “protected student information surveys”, and so forth, consistent with the requirements of law. So if the Law requires that the data on your child be collected, then it will be collected and parents can’t stop it.
  • Page 4, lines 35 to 50 provide that the State Board of Education will decide what parents “need to know” about their child’s educational progress. So if the State Board decides parents don’t need to know, then parents won’t be informed.

SB 49 goes on and on like this for 6 more pages. I’ll mention only a few of the more virulent features in the remaining pages.  Pages 6 – 7 address the “governing bodies of public school units”.  Page 6, lines 1-37 state that the governing body[5] is to develop policies which “provide for parental choices and establish parental responsibilities.”   Please let that sink in.  Who is in charge of your children?  The governing body of the school is in charge – and they are given statutory authority to tell parents what they can and can’t do respecting their child.

Page 8, lines 11-17 assure parents that their child will not receive “instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality from kindergarten thru the 4th grade!   Wow!  So what can happen in the 5th grade?  Your child will doubtless receive detailed instruction on [I beg your Pardon for speaking of these things, but this is what our little children are being subjected to in the public schools] how to perform and receive anal intercourse, how to provide and receive oral sex, and who knows what other sexual practices?  Your son will no doubt be encouraged to believe that he is really a girl; and your daughter will no doubt be encouraged to believe that she is really a boy.   Look around you, People!  This monstrous evil is going on in the public schools right now – and the poisonous SB 49 legalizes it beginning with the 5th grade.

Page 9, lines 5-34 establish procedures for school children to be transformed into STASI like informers on their parents.[6] These lines describe “protected information surveys”.  These surveys will obtain information revealing the political affiliations or beliefs of the student’s parents; mental or psychological problems of the student or his family; sex behavior or attitudes; self-incriminating behavior; critical appraisals of students’ family relationships; religious practices of the student or the student’s parents; and so forth.  But don’t worry – parents will be given 10 days’ notice and the opportunity to review the survey before it is administered and parents may opt out.  The schools will no doubt fall down on the job of providing the advance notification to parents.   Furthermore, this provision to “opt out” will be repealed just as that provision in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which assured Americans that their Federal Reserve Notes would be fully redeemable in gold was repealed.  And see the boldfaced words discussed above at comment on Page 4, lines 1-34:  If this information is required by law to be collected, then it will be collected and children will be turned into STASI agents for the State.

  1. Legislative irresponsibility and Citizens’ shallowness permit evil legislation to be passed

Legislators should STOP voting for legislation they haven’t read and don’t understand.  It is immoral for bill sponsors to repeat the talking points they were given by those who drafted Legislation unless the sponsor has made an independent critical assessment of the legislation to determine whether the talking points are True or False.  Citizens must read beyond the title and look behind the curtain before they clamor for passage of bills with great-sounding titles.

© 2023 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Joanna Martin, JD.: publiushuldah@twlakes.net

Endnotes:

[1] This is a total inversion of our Founding Principles:  With our Constitution of 1787, we created a federal government to which We The People delegated enumerated powers – with all other powers being reserved to the States or The People.  With SB 49, the Rights of the People are enumerated – and all “rights” not granted to the People by the governments are held back by the governments.

[2] Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s book, “Is Public Education Necessary”, is a masterpiece which shows how the public school system was foisted on the American People.  You can read his work here.

[3] I use the term, “State”, the way the political philosophers use it:  It refers to the civil government – not to, e.g., the State of Tennessee.

[4] Federalist Paper No. 22, last sentence (Alexander Hamilton).

[5] ow are the members of the “governing body” selected?  Are they elected?  Are they appointed?  Who appoints them?

[6] STASI is the acronym for the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Committee for State Security) which was the security service for the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).  It operated by means of civilian informants.  If you want to see what it was like to live under such a system, watch this movie, The Lives of Others.  That movie accurately depicts life in East Germany under the STASI.



DANGER: Article V Convention Legislation filed in Congress: They Want a New Constitution

By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

September 30, 2022

Legislation recently filed in Congress shows that the assurances pro-convention lobbyists have been making to State Legislators to induce them to apply to Congress for Congress to call a Convention under Article V of our Constitution are false.

These lobbyists have convinced too many State Legislators that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to get a convention to amend the Constitution.  Our Framers never said such a thing!  But that is what is behind the push for an Article V convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending the Constitution 1) Congress may propose amendments by two-thirds majority in both Houses; or 2) Congress, upon the applications of two-thirds of the State Legislatures, calls a convention where the Delegates may propose amendments. The second method has never been used – it’s dangerous!

Nevertheless, the pro-convention lobby has been assuring State Legislators that a Convention is perfectly safe because State Legislatures will control it:  They will determine the amendments to be considered at the Convention; Congress can’t call a convention until Congress receives 34 applications from State Legislatures which ask for the same amendment; and Delegates to the convention may consider nothing but amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

If Congress calls a convention, would Congress or the Delegates to the Convention be constrained by the Lobbyists’ assurances to State Legislators? 

Of course not!  The Delegates – as Sovereign Representatives of The People – would have the self-evident Right, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government.” Accordingly, Congress isn’t empowered by Article V or anything else in the Constitution to call a limited convention restricted to considering only the amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.

And now, legislation consistent with this “self-evident Right” has been recently filed in Congress: 

On July 19, 2022, Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced H.Con.Res.101, which calls a convention; and H.R. 8419, which sets forth how applications for a convention are to be counted.

These Resolutions show that the convention pushers’ assurances that Delegates to the Convention can do nothing but consider amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures, are false:  

H.C.R. 101 §1(a) (1) says, “…Congress hereby calls a convention for proposing amendments…”

H.R. 8419 creates subsection  (c) of 1 U.S. Code, § 106, which directs the Archivist of the United States to count all non-rescinded applications asking Congress to call a Convention; and to notify Congress of its duty to call a Convention when the Archivist receives non-rescinded applications for a Convention from two-thirds of the States.

H.R. 8419 doesn’t permit the Archivist to sort the applications by the amendments specified by State Legislatures.  Instead, H.R. 8419 directs the Archivist to count all non-rescinded applications together.

One group pushing for a Convention has already admitted that Congress can “mix & match” the various applications for a convention:  This group combined non-rescinded applications passed in 1789, several passed in 1861 to avert the Civil War, and during 1901 for popular election of US Senators with applications passed in recent decades for a balanced budget amendment.[1]

And the Archivist of the United States is, in effect, directed by H.R. 8419 to mix and match the various applications!  If an application is non-rescinded, the Archivist is directed to count it to get to 34.

So H.C.R. 101 & H.R. 8419 really are consistent with the “self-evident right” of a People to alter or abolish their government and set up a new one.  And they reveal that whoever drafted these Resolutions also understands that State Legislatures have no power to dictate what is considered by Delegates at the convention.  In State Legislatures’ applications to Congress for a convention, they sometimes insist that they will control the convention (see p. 2, line 19 thru p. 7 of this application in the Pennsylvania Senate); but the Truth is that the Constitution sets forth what Congress has the power to do respecting an Article V Convention; and State Legislatures cannot change this by wishful thinking.  And State Legislatures cannot dictate to Congress how Congress is to exercise a power the Constitution grants to Congress!

If Congress calls an Article V convention, you can be sure that a new Constitution will be imposed on us.[2] The convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.   But the convention proposed a new Constitution which had a new mode of ratification and which created a new form of government.  James Madison warned that those who secretly want a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting amendments”.

State Legislators need to open their eyes and see that while they are being used to get a Convention; they will have no power over the Convention; and won’t be able to do anything to stop a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification from being imposed on us.  State Legislatures must immediately rescind the applications for a convention they already sent to Congress.

© 2022 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Joanna Martin, J.D.: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] At the time the “BBA” organization prepared their chart, the applications they counted were non-rescinded.  They counted 33 States with active applications on file with Congress.  But thankfully, after their Chart was published, several of the States listed on their Chart wised-up and rescinded their applications.  Other States whose previous applications for a convention are still active better rescind them before the Archivist gets her hands on them!

[2] A member of Mark Meckler’s “COS” Legal Advisory Board, Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, has already co-authored a new Constitution which grants massive new powers to a new federal government and imposes gun controls with red flag confiscations.   Read it & tremble for your Country.



Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member drafted a New Constitution For Gun Control

By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

December 15, 2021

Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms.  Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.

The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution.  Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States.[1]

Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution

Various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS)organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government.[2]

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention. In addition to Mark Meckler and his allies; two large gun rights organizations, Gun Owners of America and Firearms Owners Against Crime,[3] were present at the roundtable.

Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true.  But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention,we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.

Meckler showed up at the roundtable dressed in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”.  He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]

A bit later on, Meckler said:

“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. …[43:02 – 43:25]

So who is Professor Robbie George? And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?

Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.

Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms! His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:

“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.” 

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

  • authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation?  The governments will decide.
  • authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What’s a “reasonable” regulation? The governments will decide; and,
  • authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense”, if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.

We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; People who read the Constitution; and Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”.  Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms?  Of course not- they are dangerous!

At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:

“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment? Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.” [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]

Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:

“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country …that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!

The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V. … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization,they should be working with these organizations. Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.” [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]

So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57], threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania[4] will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!

Look behind the Curtain

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments.[5] If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed.[6] And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.

The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have.  States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention!  It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications.  Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting,or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.

We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.

© 2021 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Joanna Martin: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training.  States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.

[2] This is shown in these flyers:

[3] John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GOA; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.

[4] It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania.  Legislators in other States have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false:  See Phony Petitions and Polls.

[5] James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem:  See this flyer at footnote 2.

[6] Information on additional proposed Constitutions is in the flyer linked just above.

Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions.  All of them transfer massive new powers to the new fed gov’t.

The Constitution for the New states of America was produced some 60 years ago. Under this Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.  Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed.  Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum -so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.



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

By Publius Huldah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violations by the federal government of The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. State and local governments

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

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

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

  1. That all acts of the federal government described herein above in Part II are unconstitutional and are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
  2. That all acts of State and local governments described herein above in Part III would also be unconstitutional and unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and that this body [identify whether it’s the State legislature or a County or municipal governmental body] will vigorously oppose all such unlawful acts.
  3. That this body intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be free from the requirement of forced injections, mask wearing, social distancing, lock-downs; and will not permit Ohio Citizens to be relocated against their wills to the internment (concentration) camps now being planned by the unconstitutional federal agency known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Signatures, etc.

© 2021 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnote:

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



The Death Blow: an Article V Convention to Replace Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

Open your eyes and see what is going on in our Country.  If you don’t face up to Reality right now and act accordingly, we are doomed.

The fight over whether to have an Article V convention isn’t between Republicans and Democrats, or liberals or “conservatives”.  It is spiritual warfare between those who want to keep our Biblically based Constitution of 1787;[1] and godless revolutionaries who want to get rid of our Constitution and set up the New World Order.

  1. Our institutions have long since been captured by the enemy

The transformation of our Country into the New World Order has been going on for well over 100 years. A brief summary of the capture of our institutions is set forth here.  But even worse than the capture of our institutions, was the ideological subversion of the American People: former KGB officer Yuri Bezemov described that ideological subversion here.

Now that all of our institutions have been captured, and great numbers of Americans have been ideologically subverted; the War is turning “hot”:  The enemy now seeks to finish the job of destroying us and our Country.

  1. Our Republic was overthrown in the last election

The essential characteristic of a “republic” is that power is exercised by representatives elected by the People.  Due to last minute unconstitutional changes to State elections laws which made massive election fraud possible,[2] the last election was stolen; and we lost our Right to choose our representatives.  They are now chosen by those who control the voting machines.

  1. Violent insurrections in the cities

The violent insurrections in the cities are carried on by Marxist-trained communist agitators who mean to kill us and burn down our cities – they say so here and in many other videos which have been on the internet.  And we’ve seen on the internet videos showing that the violent insurrections are supported by various members of Congress and the pretended Vice-President of the United States.

  1. Replacing our Constitution at an Article V convention

So now the time is ripe for the forces of the New World Order to move in for the final kill:  To get rid of our Constitution.  That Constitution is the only thing [other than the Mercy of God] remaining which stands between us and hell of the New World Order.

If Congress calls a convention under Article V, US Constitution; our present Constitution of 1787 can – and almost certainly will – be replaced with a new constitution.[3]

Congress is the body which has the constitutional authority to “call” – organize and set up – an Article V convention.  Congress – the same Congress which is now controlled by those who egg on the insurrections which are destroying our cities and intimidating the inhabitants.

And it is that Congress which has the power to determine how Delegates to an Article V Convention are selected – and even who they will be.  The Constitution is explicit:

  • Article V grants to Congress the power to “call” the Convention.
  • Article I, §8, last clause, grants to Congress the power to make the laws necessary & proper to carry out its power to organize and set up the convention.

Accordingly, the Congressional Research Service Report of April 11, 2014 [link] recognizes:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…”

“Second…Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including… (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates…” (p.4)

So, among its other powers respecting a convention, Congress may appoint the Delegates – they may appoint themselves!  And those members of Congress who support the violent insurrections, or are getting money from the Chinese Communists, and other subversives may well be the Delegates!

If State Legislatures give to Congress the power to call an Article V Convention, there is nothing any of us can do to stop it if Congress appoints subversives & revolutionaries as Delegates.

And while Congress is deciding who the Delegates will be, and where the Convention will meet, what will be going on outside the Capitol Building?  Busloads of armed and violent Antifa and BLM rioters were sent into Minneapolis to intimidate the Jury in the Chauvin trial;[4] and to commit murder, mayhem, and burn down the City in the event Chauvin were acquitted [link].  Will these thugs also descend on the District of Columbia when Congress is deciding who the Delegates will be?

And what about the convention itself?  Will the Delegates be intimidated by armed and violent Antifa and BLM thugs surrounding the place the Convention meets?   Will these thugs demand that the proposed Constitution for the New Socialist Republic of North America [link] be imposed?  Will they demand the Marxist Constitution George Soros wants [link]?  Will the Chinese Communist Party demand that the Delegates impose the Constitution they want?  Or will the globalists demand that the Delegates propose a new Constitution which transforms the formerly sovereign United States into a member state of the North American Union [link]?  Will the Delegates be in such fear of their lives that – as in the Chauvin Jury – they surrender to the demands of the mob?

And know this:  Any constitution has its own mode of ratification.  The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America [link] provides at Article XII, §1 that it is ratified by a referendum called by the President.  The States don’t vote on it; they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

And as to ratification of the new constitution by national referendum: we would see once again, that Lenin was right when he said the people who vote don’t determine the outcome of elections – the people who count the votes do.

  1. And it is Republican State Legislators who are putting us in this fatal danger

The Article V Convention is being marketed by demagogues and hirelings to State Legislators (primarily Republicans) as the “conservative” solution to our problems.  They falsely assure State Legislators that they will select Delegates and have complete control over what they do.[5] And since Legislators of today often know little to nothing about our Founding Documents, History, or Civics; and have been ideologically subverted as well, they fall for the marketing.

And, like many others, they are shutting their eyes to the unpleasant Reality described above. But that is the context in which an Article V convention would take place today.

These are the ones who will turn over to Congress the power to get the new Constitution which will be the death blow to this Country.  

May God have mercy on their souls – they will have much to answer for.  It is their adamant refusal to listen to the warnings against an Article V Convention which has grave moral implications for them.

© 2021 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Our Constitution of 1787 was based on God’s Model of civil government [link].

[2] The unconstitutional changes to our State Election Laws which created the opportunities for the fraud are described in a series of papers here.

[3] See, e.g., “What the Convention Lobby isn’t telling you about our Declaration of Independence” [link] & “How to get a new Constitution under the PRETEXT of proposing Amendments” [link].

[4] Alan Dershowitz speaks here of how US Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for riots if Chauvin weren’t convicted, thereby terrorizing the Jurors into finding Chauvin “guilty”.

[5] Eminent conservative constitutional litigators William Olson & Herb Titus have rightly described such assurances as “false” and “reckless in the extreme” [link].



When the feds violate the Constitution, should we blame the Constitution?

By Publius Huldah

In Rob Natelson’s paper [link], “The Solution is a Convention of the States”, he makes claims about what our Framers said is the purpose of amendments to our Constitution which are not true.  He also gives false assurances about the safety of a convention called by Congress under Article V of the Constitution.

At the outset, we should note that the title of Natelson’s paper incorporates a stratagem which creates the false belief that the States control the convention.  The belief is false because the convention provided for by Art. V of the Constitution is a federal convention called by the federal government to perform the federal function of addressing our federal Constitution.  It is not a state function; accordingly, the term, “convention of States”, does not appear in Article V.  So the “Convention of States movement” (COS), of which Natelson is “senior advisor”, renamed the convention provided for in Article V as a “convention of the States”;[1] and re-defined it as “a convention controlled by State Legislatures”.

Now let’s examine various other claims on which COS builds its case.

1- The fabricated George Mason quote

COS claims that our Framers gave us the convention method of getting amendments so that when the federal government “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, we can get a convention to “make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”  Or, in plain English, when the feds violate the Constitution, the solution is a convention to amend the Constitution.

But our Framers didn’t say that.  The falsity and absurdity of COS’s claim is exposed here.  What our Framers actually said is that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.  And they recognized that the purpose of a convention is to get another Constitution.  James Madison warned that those who secretly want to get rid of our Constitution would push for a convention under the pretext of getting amendments.

2- Natelson’s claims re using amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” & “restrain federal power”

Natelson admits that the Framers said we can use amendments to correct defects in the Constitution; but then muddles up what the Framers actually said with what they never said, thereby seemingly legitimizing his misleading claim that the Framers envisioned that we could use amendments to “overrule bad Supreme Court decisions” and “restrain federal power”.

As an example of a “bad” Supreme Court decision, Natelson claims that “[i]n early 1795, the States ratified the 11th Amendment to reverse an overreaching Supreme Court decision”.

The decision he is referring to is Chisholm v. Georgia(1793)[link]; and what he says about it isn’t true.  What Chisholm actually stands for is this:  Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl.1).  But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, States were outraged!  Georgia sued.  In Chisholm, the Supreme Court decided the case in accordance with the Constitution and held that Chisholm could maintain his suit.

But the States didn’t want Citizens of other States suing them.  So the States ratified the 11th Amendment which took away from the federal courts the constitutional authority to hear cases filed by a Citizen against another State.  So the 11th Amendment illustrates what our Framers actually said is the purpose of amendments: to fix defects in the Constitution.

Natelson also claims that our Framers said we could use amendments to “restrain federal power” when the federal government “exceeded and abused its powers”.

Again, Natelson muddles up the true and the false when he fails to distinguish between usurpations of undelegated powers and abuses of delegated powers.

No Framer said that amendments could be used to restrain usurpations of powers not delegated.  And in Federalist No. 49 (last para) James Madison says the opposite.  He warns against another convention and says, “occasional appeals to the people [a convention] would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision” for restraining the federal government within its legal powers.

But when the federal government abuses a delegated power, an amendment could be appropriate.  Here’s an example: the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional since tariffs are authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1. But it was abusive because it benefited infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the Southern States. So what’s the remedy for such abuse of delegated power?  Article I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections.

3- Natelson’s proposed “corrective reforms” to the Constitution

Natelson says he wants a convention to get a balanced budget amendment (BBA); to curb “undemocratic and unfair” regulations; to reverse “liberal-activist Supreme Court decisions”; to impose term limits; and get other amendments “to restrain federal power”.

But as anyone who has read it knows,our Constitution already limits the federal government to a handful of enumerated powers.  The powers are listed here. The categories of cases federal courts are authorized to hear are listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1. All the problems of which COS and Natelson complain are the result of violations by the federal government of the existing constitutional limitations on their powers – and the States’ acquiesce in such violations!

Balanced Budget Amendment: Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers.  But for 100 years, everyone has ignored the existing limits on federal spending.  A BBA would replace the existing enumerated powers limitation on federal spending and create a new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the President or Congress put into the budget!  A BBA thus legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers, and transforms the federal government into one which has constitutional authority over whatever Congress decides to spend money on.

Federal Regulations: Article I, §1 vests all lawmaking powers in Congress.  So all regulations issued by federal executive agencies which purport to apply to the Country at Large are unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1; and as outside the scope of the enumerated powers. An amendment such as Natelson proposes is a grant of constitutional power to federal executive agencies to make Laws.

Supreme Court Opinions: This shows why Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.  This shows why the opinions banning Christian speech in the public square are unconstitutional.  The remedy our Framers advised for such usurpations is impeachment and removal from the Bench (Federalist No. 81, 8th para), and nullification by the States of unconstitutional opinions [link].

Natelson cannot produce any writing from a Framer which says that when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.  Our Framers were not silly men. And what would such an amendment as Natelson proposes say?  That federal judges must obey the Constitution?  Article VI already requires that.  Does Natelson propose amendments which list the subjects on which federal courts may not act?  But Art. III, §2, cl. 1 already lists the kinds of cases they may hear. But we ignore those existing limitations.

Term limits amendment: If we learned anything from the last election, it should be that we will not in the foreseeable future have an honest federal election.  With H.R.1, Congress is likely to attempt to “legalize” the unconstitutional shenanigans which enabled the theft of the last election. So your vote won’t matter!

But even if we had honest federal elections, consider this: As you decrease the powers of elected members of Congress by making them transient beings –you increase the powers of the “deep state”. With term limits, elected members of Congress would become like train cars passing in the night –the power would be solidified in the nameless, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats who infest the Executive Branch.

Anyone who analyzes the amendments proposed by COS and their allies can see that their amendments increase the powers of the federal government by delegating powers already usurped, granting new powers, or stripping States of their existing powers.  See: ‘Mark Levin’s “Liberty” Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny’ [link]; ‘COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there’ [link], & ‘The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster’ [link].

4- Amendments to “prevent federal abuse” can backfire!

When amendments correct defects in the Constitution, they are clearly a good thing. The 12th & 13th Amendments, like the 11th Amendment, corrected defects in the Constitution.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extended Citizenship to the freed slaves and provided constitutional authority for the much needed federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.

But amendments added to prevent federal abuses backfired.  In Federalist No. 84 (10th para), Alexander Hamilton warned against adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution.  Under a Constitution of enumerated powers, the government may lawfully do only what the Constitution permits it to do.  So

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? … it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power...” [emphasis mine]

But Hamilton’s warnings were brushed aside.

Beginning in the 1920s, Justices on the Supreme Court – who were “disposed to usurp” – fabricated a doctrine under which they claimed that §1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” various parts of the first 8 Amendments so that those Amendments restricted the States!  This how the Supreme Court usurped power to dictate how the States must apply the Bill of Rights.  As shown here (at 12. & end note 4), this is the theory the Supreme Court used to ban Christian speech from the public schools and County courthouse lawns.

Throughout the years, the Supreme Court has extended its “incorporation doctrine” to dictate to the States how they must apply the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments [link].

Furthermore:  Amendments usher in implementing federal statutes and executive agency regulations – and  judicial power over the subject of the Amendment becomes vested in the federal courts.  Article III, §2, cl.1, says, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases … arising under this Constitution …”

Beware of what you ask for.

5- Natelson’s assurances that a convention would consist of “state delegations” sent “to propose pre-specified amendments” are false and reckless in the extreme[2]

Natelson presents nothing to support his assurances.  He can’t because his assurances are contradicted by the Constitution; and by the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, which is our sole historical precedent for a federal convention called by a Congress to address our federal Constitution.

Article V, US Constit., says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…” [italics added]

Article I, §8, last clause, US Constit., says Congress shall have the Power…

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” [italics added].

So Congress calls the convention and makes the laws necessary and proper to organize the convention.

The April 11, 2014 Report of the Congressional Research Service [link] shows that Congress recognizes that Article V grants to Congress exclusive authority to set up a convention:

“Second, While the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including (1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications;…(4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates…” (page 4).

So Congress has the power to receive and judge the applications; how to count the applications, which ones to count, whether to aggregate the different forms of applications, etc.

Nothing in the Constitution permits State Legislatures to dictate amendments to be considered. The convention is the deliberative body.

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to permit States to select Delegates.  Congress– the same Congress which Natelson tells us is “abusive”, “mendacious” and “revels in its power”- has the power to select the Delegates.  Congress may appoint themselves as Delegates.[3]

6- The People have the power to take down and set up governments

The push for an Article V convention is a hoax. The Globalists who stole the Election want a new Constitution. They are using “getting amendments to rein in the federal government” as a pretext for getting a convention where a new Constitution is sure to be imposed.  Madison expressly warned of this stratagem [link].

Our Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” of our Land. It recognizes that The People take down and create governments.  When Delegates meet in convention to address a Constitution, they are the Sovereign Representatives of The People.  They cannot be controlled by the “creatures” of Constitutions previously ratified by the People [link].

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para) James Madison invoked the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to throw off one government and set up a new one as justification for the Delegates to the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 ignoring their instructions to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and instead writing a new Constitution with its own easier mode of ratification.

Accordingly, even if the “abusive” and “mendacious” Congress doesn’t “revel in its power” to appoint Delegates, but graciously permits States to select Delegates, State Legislatures have no competent authority to control Delegates at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V. The Delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to eliminate the federal & state governments![4]

Heed the warning of the great statesman Daniel Webster:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

© 2021 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] In a speech Natelson gave on Sep. 16, 2010 [link] at top of p. 2], he said he would no longer call what he wanted a “constitutional convention”; but would ‘put our concepts on “reset” ’ and henceforth call it a “convention of states”.

[2] Noted conservative constitutional litigators and law professors William Olsen and Herb Titus have already recognized that COS’s “false assurances” are “reckless in the extreme” [link].

[3] Page 40 of the CRS Report says it’s been recognized that there doesn’t seem to be any “… constitutional prohibition against [U.S.] Senators and Representatives serving as delegates to an Article V Convention..”

[4] The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America [link] does just that. Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum called by the President. Do YOU trust the voting machines?



What the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to Do on January 6, 2021

By Publius Huldah

  1. The Rule of Law is being erased in our Land

Several years ago, I saw a movie on TV.  The setting was Berlin, Germany just after WWII at the time the Soviets were laying roles of barbed wire on the ground to mark the border between East and West Berlin.  The main characters were a young American woman and a young German man. He had gotten a law degree while Hitler was taking over Germany; but he never practiced law.  She asked him why and he said, “The Law disappeared”.

And that’s what’s going on in our Country:  The Law – as the standard which those in government must obey – has disappeared and is being replaced by the age-old system where those with the power do what they want, and the cowards go along with it.

Just as the cowards in Germany went along with Hitler; cowards in America are going along with the Left’s brazen theft of the recent election. Countries are destroyed by such cowards; and that may be the reason Revelation 21:8 lists cowards as the first to be thrown into the Lake of Fire:  Tyrants couldn’t get to first base without the acquiescence of cowards.

So this paper calls upon each Member of Congress to rise up and restore the Rule of Law to our Land.[1] Knowledge of Truth – and the Love of Truth – makes us strong.  So learn the Truth, embrace it, and restore the Rule of Law.

  1. We must read each Part of the Constitution in the Light cast by the other Parts

It is impossible to understand any Part of the Constitution without understanding how that Part fits into the Whole; and how each individual Part is affected by the other Parts addressing the same subject. Accordingly, it is an ancient rule of construction that constitutional provisions or statutes that are on the same subject (in parimateria) must be construed together [link].

So it is a serious misconstruction of the 12th Amendment to assert that Congress’s role on January 6 is the passive one of merely counting numbers; or that the Presiding Officer has discretion to do whatever he wants.

As shown below, specific provisions of the Constitution impose on Congress the Duty to determine whether the Electors were lawfully chosen; and whether the putative President elect and Vice-President elect are qualified for office.

  1. When it meets on January 6, Congress must enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the Appointment of Electors

Article I, §4, clause 1; Article II, §1, clause 2; and Article II, §1, clause 4

Art. I, §4, cl. 1 says that only state and federal legislatures have the power to make laws addressing the Times, Places and Manner of conducting federal elections.  So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws made by the Legislatures!

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 says that the Electors for President and Vice-President are to be appointed in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct.  So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws respecting how the Electors are to be chosen!

So Electors who were appointed in violation of these two provisions were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President.

Art. II, §1, cl.4 provides that Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors.  At 3 USC §1, Congress set the time for chusing Electors for November 3.  So Electors who were appointed after November 3 by means of late ballots (which was made possible by unconstitutional changes to state election laws which unlawfully extended the deadlines for receiving ballots past Nov. 3) were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President.[2]

  1. Congress must also enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the qualifications for the Offices of President and Vice-President

Article II, §1, clause 5

Art. II, §1, cl. 5 sets forth qualifications for the Office of President.  After our first generation of Presidents [who were all born as subjects of the King of England] had passed away; the qualifications for President are that he must be a “natural born citizen”, at least 35 years of age, and have been for at least 14 Years a Resident within the United States.

The last sentence of the 12th Amendment shows that no person who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be Vice-President.[3]

The 22nd Amendment

The 22ndAmendment imposes term limits on the office of President.  So any person who has already served two terms is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

The 20th Amendment, §3

  • 3 of the 20th Amendment addresses what happens when the President elect and/or Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”. So §3 underlines Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment; and the 22nd Amendment: If the President elect or the Vice-President elect “fail to qualify”, they are to be passed over.

So!  The Constitutional scheme is that the Electors’ choice is subject to Congress’ determinations of:

  • whether the requirements of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 were obeyed when the Electors were selected; and
  • whether the persons whom the Electors chose meet the requirements of Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment, and the term limits provision of the 22nd

If not, Congress must disqualify the persons.

  1. Congress is also bound by these Constitutional provisions

The Guaranty clause at Article IV, §4

Art. IV, § 4 says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” [emphasis added]

Since the essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People;[4] the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl.4 (which made massive election fraud possible) strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

When Electors are selected in violation of our Constitution by means of last minutes changes unlawfully made to state election laws; and/or an election is stolen by means of fraud, the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them – and the Republic is destroyed.

Art. IV, §4 imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections.  Congress can do this by enforcing Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art.II, §1, cl.2; and Art.II, §1, cl. 4 by disqualifying the Electors chosen in contravention of those provisions.

Congress may (and should) also disqualify Biden and Harris on the additional ground that their pretended election was procured by cheating.  They must be stripped of their sham “win”.[5]

The Supremacy clause at Article VI, cl. 2

Art. VI, cl. 2says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” [italics added]

Only those Acts of Congress which are consistent with the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land.[6]

Accordingly, Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act (3 USC §§1-21), are unconstitutional to the extent they purport to:

  • require Congress to accept slates of Electors who were appointed in violation of Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4;
  • require Congress, in the case of dueling slates of Electors, to choose the slate signed by the Governor of the State and reject the slate approved by the State Legislature;[7] and
  • eliminate the 12th Amendment’s dispute resolution procedures under which the House of Representatives chooses the President; and the Senate chooses the Vice-President.[8]

But, contrary to what some have asserted, the 12th Amendment most manifestly does NOT vest exclusive authority and sole discretion in the President of the Senate (Vice-President Mike Pence)to determine which slates of Electors for a State are to be counted and which slates are to be rejected!

As President of the Senate, the Vice-President has certain Parliamentary powers at his disposal; but he has no “discretion” in deciding whether he will adhere to the Constitutional framework governing the Election.  He – and every other Member of Congress – must adhere to and enforce each Constitutional provision.

The Oath of Office at Article VI, cl. 3

Every Member of Congress is bound by Oath or Affirmation to support our Constitution.  On January 6, you must lay aside all personal considerations.  Do your DUTY as set forth in the Constitution. And remember: This isn’t about Trump – this is about whether our Republic is to survive.  If you permit violations of the Constitution and the resulting fraud to prevail; you will destroy our Republic.

  1. Our Constitution sets up an elegant system of checks and balances

One of the benefits of the “separation of powers” Principle is that it provides a mechanism for one power to correct violations made by another power. Within the federal and State governments, powers are divided into three Branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  Each Branch has the duty to “check” the violations of the other Branches.

Likewise, the power of the State governments is separated from the power of the federal government.  When people within State governments violate the Constitution – as was done in the recent election – it is the Duty of the federal government to “check” the violation.  Since Electors were chosen in violation of the Constitution; Congress has the Duty to check the violations and reject those Electors.

Endnotes:

[1] The term, “rule of law”, is defined here at Point 7.

[2] The same Principle applies to Electors who were chosen before Nov. 3 pursuant to [unconstitutional] state election laws which permit early voting for selection of Electors.

[3] It appears that at the time Kamala Harris was born, her parents were not US Citizens.  If so, she is constitutionally ineligible to be President or Vice-President [link].  Congress has the Duty to inquire into this matter; and if they find that she is not a “natural born citizen” within the original intent of Art. II, §1, cl.5, it is Congress’ Duty to disqualify her. Congress is the body which is charged with determining the eligibility of the President and Vice-President [link].

[4] Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison): “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

[5] If you win a medal at the Olympics; and it’s later discovered that you cheated by taking performance-enhancing drugs, you will be stripped of “win” and medal – and both will be awarded to your runner-up. The same Principle applies to stolen elections.

[6] Federalist No. 78, 10th para (A. Hamilton):“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; ….” [emphasis mine]

[7] Art. II, §1, cl. 2 provides that the State Legislatures have the power to direct how the Electors are to be appointed!  The State Governor has no constitutional power whatsoever in the selection of Presidential Electors!

[8] To the same effect, see the Complaint recently filed by US Representative Louie Gohmert [link].



Article IV, §4, US Constitution Requires Congress, Supreme Court, and the President to Stop the Steal

By Publius Huldah

Here is the interview Alex Newman of The New American Magazine and I did on December 23.

  1. The Supreme Court’s Dereliction of Duty

The Pennsylvania Lawsuit

As pointed out in the interview [and previously here], Art.I, §4, cl. 1, US Constitution, delegates to state and federal legislatures alone the power to make the laws addressing the “times, places and manner” of conducting federal elections.  In addition, Art. II, §1, cl. 2provides that the State Legislatures are to decide how the Presidential Electors for their State are to be appointed.

But in Pennsylvania (and other States), Judges and State Executive Branch officials changed the laws made by their State Legislature in order to permit fraud of such a massive scale as would enable the theft of the election for the Biden/Harris ticket. Accordingly, during late September, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional changes to the State election laws. They lost in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and asked the US Supreme Court to review it.

But the Supreme Court dragged its feet.  So on October 28, Justice Alito (who is the “go-to” Justice for the US Circuit in which Pennsylvania is located), issued a statement [link] where he identified violations of Art.I, §4, cl. 1 and Art. II, §1, cl. 2 as an issue of “national importance” which “calls out for review” by the Supreme Court; and that the Court should decide this issue BEFORE the election. He warned that the Supreme Court’s inaction on the “important constitutional issue” raised in the lawsuit has created conditions that could lead to “serious post-election problems.”

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined Justice Alito in his Statement – but nobody else.

The Supreme Court still hasn’t announced whether they will review the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They set this case for conference (among themselves) on January 8 [link]– which is two days after Congress meets to count the votes.

The Texas Lawsuit

The Supreme Court’s handling of the Texas lawsuit was equally egregious.  The Texas case alleged that using COVID-19 as an excuse, state government officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan,and Wisconsin usurped their State Legislature’s authority and unconstitutionally revised their State’s election statutes.  These changes made massive election fraud possible.  The Complaint sets forth compelling facts alleging the massive and coordinated fraud used to steal the November 3 election.

But the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, claiming that Texas “lacked standing” to bring the action. They were dead wrong.  Here’s why:

Article IV, §4, US Constitution, says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

The essence of a “Republic” is that sovereign power is exercised by Representatives elected by The People.[1] Accordingly, the violations of Art.I, §4, cl. 1 and Art. II, §1, cl. 2 -which made the massive election fraud possible –strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

Obviously, when an election is stolen by corrupt politicians and political parties – with the connivance of Judges and State election officials – the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them.

And this is why the State of Texas has “standing” to bring the lawsuit: Art. IV, §4, is for the benefit of the States who comprise this Union. The States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution.  The Supreme Court is merely the “creature” of that Constitution; and they may not lawfully actin contravention of the Document under which they hold their existence.

The US Supreme Court is required to act so as to preserve the Republican Form of Government for Texas and all other States. They shirked their Duty.  Shame on the Supreme Court!

  1. Attorney General William Barr’s Dereliction of Duty

Article IV, §4 also imposes on the US Attorney General– as part of the Executive Branch of the federal government – the Duty “to guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

Accordingly, the Attorney General has the Duty to prosecute persons engaged in federal election fraud; and he has the Duty to file civil actions addressing the election fraud – such as suggested by constitutional litigators William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney in their Christmas Eve article here.

But not only did Barr not lift a finger to fight the fraud – he denied there was any fraud. He too shirked his constitutional Duty. Shame on William Barr!

  1. Will Congress also shirk their Constitutional Duty?

Article IV, §4 also imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee to the States a Republican Form of Government.

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment imposes on Congress the additional Duty of determining whether the President Elect and Vice President Elect have “qualified” for office [respecting that,this short post will help you].

Congress has the ability to perform its sacred Duty under Art. IV, §4, by disqualifying Biden and Harris on the bases that their election was procured by changes to State election laws made in violation of Art.I, §4, cl. 1 and Art.II, §1, cl. 2, which made possible the brazen fraud which resulted in the theft of the election for Biden and Harris.

Kamala Harris should be disqualified on the additional ground that she is not a “natural born citizen” as required by Art. II, §1, cl. 5 and the 12th Amendment [link].

But shockingly, it appears that some Republicans in Congress intend to go along with the fraud, and will use as an excuse the silly claim that presidential elections are up to the States and Congress shouldn’t bully the States!

But that would constitute an aiding and abetting of election fraud, and a shirking of Constitutional Duties. Congress!  Do not strip The American People of their right to honest federal elections!

  1. The Fraudulent Election is an Act of War against the People of the United States

This was not just another election. This was a planned and coordinated attack on the People of the United States. If we don’t defeat the fraud, the People of the United States will have been stripped of their sovereign power to choose their own Representatives.[2]

This is an Insurrection against the sovereign power of WE THE PEOPLE. Traitors within our local, state, and federal governments have conspired with one another – and apparently foreign agents – to take our sovereign power away from us. And cowards are going along with it.

  1. President Trump has constitutional and statutory authority to carry out the Duty imposed on him by Art. IV, §4

If, when it meets on January 6, Congress too shirks its constitutional Duty to guarantee honest federal elections and refuses to disqualify Biden & Harris; then the President is our last hope (within the purview of the Constitution).[3] Not only does Art. IV, §4 impose this duty on the President; he is also bound by his Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art.II, §1, last clause); and, by Art.II, §3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.  These three provisions impose upon him the Duty to act so as to preserve the Federal Constitutional Republic created by our Constitution of 1787.

And he has the constitutional and statutory authority to carry out his Duty:

Call up the Militia!

Article I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes Congress… “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” [italics added]

Congress “provided for” calling forth the Militia by delegating to the President the authority to use his own judgment respecting whether to send the Militia into any State:

  • To enforce the Laws of the United States [10 USC §252];
  • To suppress uprisings which deprive the people of the rights, privileges and immunities, and protections recognized in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the State government isn’t protecting those rights [10 USC §253]; and
  • To suppress uprisings which oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws [10 USC §253].

So the Militia may be called forth:

  • To enforce I, §4, cl.1 (which requires that only state and federal Legislatures may make laws respecting the times, places and manner of holding federal elections);
  • To enforce II, §1, cl.2 (which provides that the State Legislatures are to decide how the Presidential Electors for their State are to be appointed);
  • To enforce IV, §4 (which requires the United States to guarantee to the States a Republican Form of Government); and
  • To suppress the Insurrection which is right now going on in our Country.

A Brief History of the Militia

The term, “Militia”, refers to the armed and trained male Citizens.  The Militia Act of 1792 provided for the arming and training of these male Citizens [link]. Our Framers did not want a standing professional Army – that’s why appropriations for the regular Army were limited to two years (Art. I, §8, cl. 12).  Enforcement of federal laws, suppression of Insurrections, and much of the national defense were to be the responsibility of the Militia.  When the federal gov’t needs to enforce its laws, it is to call forth the Militia – the armed and trained Citizens – to do the enforcing! During the Washington Administration, the federal gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the federal excise tax on whiskey. Federal law enforcement is thus the province of the Citizens – the Militia![4]

But with the Dick Act of 1903, the organized Militia was converted into the National Guard – which is an adjunct of the federal military.  And with 10 USC §246, Congress redefined “Militia” to consist of two classes:

“(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

Earlier this year, in response to the violent Insurrections in the cities, Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D. (our Country’s foremost authority on the Militia) showed here how President Trump has the authority to send the Militia into the cities to suppress the Insurrections.  But as discussed here [at endnote 11], President Trump’s two previous Secretaries of Defense apparently indicated that they would not obey orders to send the National Guard into the cities.  Will Chris Miller, the present acting Secretary of Defense, be any better?

But if President Trump calls up “the unorganized militia” – which remains in existence as recognized by 10 USC §246 and which has his back – to enforce Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art.II, §1, cl.2 and Art. IV, §4 – he doesn’t need the cooperation of any deep state Secretaries of Defense.

  1. Calling up the Militia is not equivalent to imposing “martial law”!

I implore Patriots to become precise in your use of terminology.  Calling up the Militia for the purposes at Art. I, §8, cl. 15 is not “imposing martial law” [and it’s not “Marshall law”]!  Martial Law is typically imposed during war time when invading military forces disband civilian governments [including the courts] in the occupied country and replace the civilian government with direct military control of civilian populations.

  1. What is “the rule of law”?

The “rule of law” is a term which politicians and Attorneys General, who have no idea what it means, love to sling around:  In his recent address to students at Hillsdale College, former Attorney General Barr said the “rule of law” means “treating everyone the same”. That’s not even close.

Law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution.  The Bible shows that Kings governed justly only when they governed in accordance with the Law of God.  In our Country, the civil authorities govern justly only when they obey our Constitution.  See: Lex, Rex, by Rev. Samuel Rutherford (1644) and here under the subheading, “1. The Civil Authorities are under the Law.”

8.This isn’t about Trump – it’s about defending our Constitutional Republic from enemy attack

It doesn’t matter what you or I think of President Trump: there is much to criticize about his policies.  This fight is about whether our Republican Form of Government, with honest & verifiable elections, is to be restored; or whether our Right to choose our Representatives is to be stripped from us forever.

© 2020 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison) [link]: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

[2] “…The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” Federalist No. 22, last para (A. Hamilton). This is what we will lose if Congress and the President permit the cheats and subversives to get away with the election fraud.

[3] If Congress and the President both shirk their Constitutional duties and “betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense …” Federalist No. 28 (A. Hamilton).  Much blood will be on the hands of those who acquiesced in the fraud.

[4] Not armed thugs from federal executive agencies such as the FBI, BATF, etc., etc., etc. !



A Constitutional Roadmap for Conquering Election Fraud

By Publius Huldah

The following shows what the State Legislatures and each Branch of the federal government have the authority to do to address the monstrous crime which has been committed against our Country.

1- Article IV, §4, US Constitution

The fundamental Principle which should guide us in dealing with this issue is set forth at Article IV, §4, US Constitution.  It reads,

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

The essence of a “Republic” is that sovereign power is exercised by Representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by The People.[1]

Election fraud strikes at the heart of our Constitutional Republic. Therefore, Congress, the federal courts and the Executive Branch [i.e., the “United States”] have the duty, imposed by Article IV, §4, to negate the fraud in order to preserve our republican form of government.

As shown below, the States also have authority to remedy the election fraud committed in their State.

2- The Constitutional framework governing federal elections

These are the clauses in the US Constitution everyone should study:

  • I, §4 is the “times, places, and manner” clause: It means what it says! Federal and State judges, and federal and State executive agencies, have no authority to tinker with election laws made by the State Legislatures or Congress.  When they tinker with the laws, their acts are usurpations and must be treated as such [link].
  • II, §1, clause 2: The President & Vice President are to be elected by Electors appointed, in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct…
  • II, §1, clause 4: Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors and the Day on which they Vote.
  • The 12th Amendment sets forth the procedures for how the Electors are to cast their votes for President &then for Vice President. To our detriment, we have ignored those procedures for a long time.
  • The 20th Amendment, §1, says the terms of President & Vice President end January 20; and the terms of Senators & Representatives end January 3.
  • And §2 of the 20th Amendment says Congress shall meet on January 3, unless they make a law setting a different date. Congress did make a law which changed that date to January 6.

3- The Statutory framework

At Title 3, US Code, §§ 1-21 [link], Congress implemented the constitutional provisions.

Congress understood there would be fights in the States over the selection of the Electors.  So they provided for the fights:

A.

At 3 USC §1, Congress set November 3 as the date for appointing the Electors in the States.

But the next two Sections address what happens when Electors aren’t appointed on November 3.

  • 2 says the Electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the Legislature of each State may direct.
  • And §3 says Electors are chosen when any controversy respecting their appointment has been finally determined. “Determining the controversy” is, of course, the purpose of the litigation and the hearings in State Legislatures.

B.

Article II, §1, clause 4, US Constitution, gives Congress authority to determine the Date on which the electors vote:

  • 3 USC §7 sets that date for December 14.
  • But 3 USC §§12 & 13 provide for what happens when Congress hasn’t received the Electors’ votes by December 23.

So we see that flexibility to deal with fights in the States over the selection of Electors is built into the US Code.

C.

Now we get to the counting of the Electors’ Votes in Congress: 3 USC §15 says Congress is to meet on January 6 to count the votes. The President of the Senate [Mike Pence] presides.  He is to call for objections to the votes. The rest of §15 and §§16-18 deal with handling the objections in Congress respecting the Electors’ votes.

So the statutory framework recognizes that selecting the Presidential Electors can get messy; and that there would be fights over the Electors in the States and in Congress. We are working through this process right now.

4- Congress has the power to determine whether the President elect and Vice President elect are qualified for office.

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment shows that Congress has the authority to determine whether the President elect and Vice President elect are qualified for office.[2] If either is not a natural born citizen, Congress has the power and the duty to disqualify that person.[3] Accordingly, it was Congress’ duty to inquire into whether Obama was a natural born citizen; and today it is Congress’ duty to inquire into whether Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen.

Congress also has the power – and the duty – to disqualify Biden and Harris on the ground that the fraud bringing about their sham “election” was an attack on the States’ Right, guaranteed by Article IV, §4, to have a republican form of government.

5- Election Fraud is a federal crime

It is the DUTY of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the election fraud.  It is disgraceful that they have done nothing.

6- The Duty of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is surely aware of its Duty, imposed by Article IV, §4, US Constitution, to guarantee to the States a republican form of government where Representatives are elected by The People – and not by corrupt politicians who pay for massive organized election fraud and cheating.

While the Supreme Court obviously cannot enforce its own rulings and must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce them;[4] the Supreme Court must issue an Opinion consistent with Article IV, §4, which, when enforced by the Executive Branch of the federal government, solves the present crisis.

7- The State Legislatures should appoint replacement Electors

It is clear that State Legislatures have the power to ignore the fraudulent election and appoint a new set of Presidential Electors.  Such is consistent with the Constitution and the statutory scheme laid out in 3 USC §§1-21.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already acknowledged that State Legislatures may do this.

REMEMBER that Article II, §1, clause 2, US Constitution, says Electors are to be appointed “in such Manner as the State Legislatures” may direct.

Originally, Electors were generally chosen by the State Legislatures. In McPherson v. Blacker, decided 1892 [link], the Supreme Court gave the history of how each State Legislature chose their Electors since the first presidential election. It was only later that State Legislatures began to provide for the popular election of the Presidential Electors.

Congress expressly recognizes that State Legislatures may resume at any time the power to select the Electors. Remember that 3 USC §2, says,

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Additionally, in Bush v. Gore, decided 2000 [link], the Supreme Court said that the State Legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it chooses, select the Electors itself; and even after granting the franchise to the People to select the Electors, State Legislatures can resume the power at any time.

So yes, in States where the election was stolen, the State Legislatures may – and should – reassume their plenary power to select the Electors.  America urges the State Legislators to be bold and do what is right.

8- Warning

Republican establishment cowards who refuse to confront and defeat the election fraud don’t seem to understand the consequences of their refusal to man up and fight the fraud.  Our Country is right now in the process of being overthrown and taken over by profoundly evil people.  You better fight while we still can.

© 2020 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison) [link]: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

[2] The qualifications are set forth at Article II, §1, clause 5 and the 12th Amendment, last sentence.

[3] Whether or not a President elect or Vice President elect meet the constitutional qualifications for office is a political question for Congress to decide.

[4] Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton) [link] “…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”  [Caps are Hamilton’s; other emphasis added]



What Can We Do To Get A Reasonably Honest Election?

By Publius Huldah

A disaster of monumental proportions is likely to be ahead for our Country if we don’t take emergency action to get at least a reasonably honest election.  Not only the President’s seat, but also the entire US House, the Houses in the State Legislatures, one/third of the seats in the US Senate, and a proportional number of seats in the State Senates, are all at stake in the upcoming election.

We are faced with irrefutable proof that the Marxists intend to steal the election.  And they will not content themselves with stealing only the President’s seat – they seek to steal every seat on the ballots.

So we need to face up to the problem and take immediate action.

  1. What does Congress have constitutional authority to do?

The President and Vice President are supposed to be elected using the procedures set forth in Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment to our US Constitution.  But we have ignored those provisions for a great many years; and it’s too late to obey them for the upcoming election of President and Vice President.

But Congress still has constitutional authority to invoke Article II, §1, cl. 4, which invests in Congress the power to determine the time of chusing the Presidential Electors and the Day on which they vote.  That date is currently set for November 3, 2020.

Pursuant to Article I, §4, cl. 1, Congress may make laws determining the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding the federal elections to Congress.

Since we know that Trump ballots have been tossed into dumpsters, and election offices have been flooded with fake Biden ballots; the best course of action would be for Congress to make a law which reschedules the November 3 election to a later date; and cancels everything which has been done so far respecting the election (at least since the primaries).

Congress could then exercise its constitutional authority to establish common sense procedures respecting the “Time, Place and Manner” of voting in the upcoming elections.  For example, Congress could pass a law providing that:

  • Every registered voter who wants to vote must physically appear at his officially designated place of voting and produce proof of identity.
  • Election Day should be one day – not weeks and months before & after the date set for the election.
  • Absentee voting should be restricted to those who are out of the Country or out of State due to military service, service in the diplomatic corps, missionaries stationed overseas, businessmen stationed overseas, etc.

We used to do it this way.

But the Marxists came in with their hard luck stories about how these requirements were harsh, unfair, discriminatory, and so forth; and so our side [as usual] caved in and went along with the demands which stripped us of the ability to have even reasonably honest elections.

However, because Marxists now control the House, Congress lacks the ability to act as suggested above.

  1. What does the US Supreme Court have constitutional authority to do?

Article I, §4, cl. 1 provides that the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting in federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political question” doctrine [LINK], the Judicial Branches of State and federal government have no lawful authority to substitute their views on these issues for those of the Legislative Branches.

Even so, with respect to the upcoming elections, lawless federal and state judges have been usurping power by substituting their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for the views of State Legislatures.  Some judges are ruling that because of COVID-19, voters shouldn’t be required to go to the polls –everyone must be allowed to vote by mail; and the time for counting ballots must be extended.

Obviously, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to substitute their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for those of the legislative bodies.  Instead, the Supreme Court’s Duty is to issue orders and judgments which adhere to what the Constitution says.

So the Supreme Court should overturn the usurpatious orders of state and federal judges who attempted to usurp power over this issue.  They should remind The People of our Country that only the State Legislatures and Congress may address these issues – that judges must keep their hands off. The power isn’t given to the Judicial Branches.

But a recent case out of South Carolina indicates that the most we will get from the Supreme Court is an unprincipled “cut the baby in half” compromise.

South Carolina law provides that a witness must sign an absentee ballot for the ballot to be valid. The Marxists (or their dupes) objected to this requirement and sued.  Using COVID-19 as the excuse, the federal judge disagreed [!] with the statutory requirement for a witness, and said the State couldn’t enforce it.  South Carolina election officials applied to the US Supreme Court for a stay of the lower Court’s order.[1]

On October 5, 2020, in Andino v. Middleton [LINK], the Supreme Court stayed the Order, except to the extent that any ballots cast before they granted the Stay and received within two days of their Order may not be rejected.

So the Supreme Court’s Order is nothing for us to celebrate.  The Supreme Court is allowing several days’ worth of unlawful ballots to be treated as valid; and thus are rewarding the trial judge’s usurpation of powers granted to the South Carolina Legislature, by allowing these unlawful ballots to be counted.

But our good Justices, Thomas and Alito, and Gorsuch as well, would have granted the Stay in full and disqualified all the unlawful absentee ballots.

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggests that, like the majority, he doesn’t understand that the Judicial Branch has no constitutional authority to alter State election laws re the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections.  To the contrary, he pointed out that the actions of the lower Court violated Supreme Court precedent that (1) an unelected federal judge ordinarily shouldn’t make public health decisions which overrule State Legislatures, and (2) federal courts ordinarily shouldn’t alter state election rules in the period close to an election.  Yikes!

So while the Supreme Court might “give” us some relief from the massive cheating, it seems unlikely that they will provide a principled defense of our Constitution.

  1. What must State Governments do?

State governments may be the only way salvage, at least to some extent, the upcoming election.  Since the Judicial Branches of the State and federal governments have no constitutional authority to change the decisions of the Legislative Branches respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections; State Governments should instruct the Election Officials for their State that they must obey & enforce the election laws passed by their State legislature and not the usurpatious orders of judges.  Judges have no constitutional authority to change what the State Legislatures do on this issue!

Election officials should also be shown that judges have no power to enforce their orders & judgments – that they depend on the Executive Branches of the federal or State governments to enforce them. We are doomed if Americans remain unable to grasp this simple concept.

© 2020 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnote:

[1] The better course of action would have been for South Carolina to nullify the lawless opinion of the federal judge by refusing to enforce it.  Remember! Federal judges have no army – they can’t enforce their Orders.  They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t to enforce them.  Who thinks President Trump would send in the National Guard to force South Carolina election officials to allow cheating in the upcoming election?  If those officials had been familiar with what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), they would have known this.



Mail-In Voting? A “Political Question” Which Only State Legislatures and Congress May Decide

By Publius Huldah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is Richardson’s 29 page Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2020 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] How do they get their groceries?

[2] Order at paras 29 – 31.

[3] The First Amendment says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • In Federalist No. 61 (4th& 5th paras), Alexander Hamilton shows that “Time” refers to when elections are held. He explains that under the Articles of Confederation [our 1stConstitution], States had been conducting elections from March to November; and that uniformity in the time of elections is necessary “for conveniently assembling the [federal] legislature at a stated period in each year”.
  • “Place”: Hamilton also points out that the suffrages of citizens living in certain parts of the States could be defeated by restricting the place of election for Representatives in the House to “an INCONVENIENT DISTANCE from the elector” (2nd para). [caps are Hamilton’s].
  • “Manner” of holding Elections refers to such things as paper ballots or show of hands, the place of voting, and whether the States will be divided into congressional districts for purposes of electing Representatives. James Madison discusses the “Manner” of holding Elections in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, August 9, 1787:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Our Constitution Provides Two Separate and Independent Methods for the Federal Government to “Call Forth the Militia” to Suppress Insurrections

By Publius Huldah

Because of its excellence and relevance to the insurrections being fomented in our cities by the Marxist organization “Black Lives Matter”, Antifa, and other revolutionary organizations; I sent the recent paper by Edwin Vieira, JD., Ph.D., titled, “The President’s Authority To Suppress Insurrections” [link], to my lists.

In response, some objected that the riots in the cities are local issues to be handled (or not) by the State and local governments – that they are not “federal” issues over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Some also asserted that Article IV, §4, US Constitution prohibits the President from sending the National Guard into a State to quell such disturbances, unless & until the Legislature or the Governor of the State requests it.

Those objections are not well-founded.

First: What’s going on in our cities is not something which can be prudently brushed aside. It is a classic manifestation of a Marxist revolution – see, e.g., this article from “Workers’ World”. Furthermore, as shown below, the President of the United States has constitutional and statutory authority to exercise his own judgment as to whether he should send in the “Militia” to suppress the uprisings.

Second: Our Constitution provides two separate and independent methods for the federal government to suppress such uprisings.

Dr. Vieira’s paper sets forth the other method of “calling forth the Militia” – the method provided for at Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. That provides for the intervention of the Militia within a State at the initiative of the federal government, regardless of whether the State requests it. [1]

When highly knowledgeable and experienced persons, such as Dr. Vieira, speak in their area of expertise, and their words contradict our existing beliefs; we ought to re-examine our beliefs, instead of dismissing what such persons say.[2]

So let’s review Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16, and some of the early Acts of Congress implementing them.

  1. The American Militia is 400 years old

Throughout our colonial period, able-bodied free males were expected to be armed and trained and ready on short notice to defend their home, family, neighborhood and Colony. They were the “Militia”. In Mel Gibson’s movie, Patriot, Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia Company. The Militia was not “regular Army” – it was comprised of farmers, pastors, shopkeepers, etc., trained in the use of arms and prepared to fight for defense of Family and Community.

In our Constitution of 1787, our Framers provided for a regular Army and Navy at Article I, §8, clauses 12, 13 & 14. Pursuant to Article II, §2, clause 1, the President is Commander in Chief (CINC) of the Army and Navy.[3]

Our Constitution also recognized the continued existence of the Militia, and assigned to it three specific federal functions: Article I, §8, clause 15 empowers Congress:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.[4]

Clause 16 authorizes Congress:

“To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

In 1792, Congress passed the Militia Act which “provided for” the arming of the Militia by requiring every able-bodied male Citizen of the ages 18-45 (with a few exceptions) [5] to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo pouch, ammo,[6] and report to his local unit for training.HERE is the Militia Act of 1792.

When the Militia of a State isn’t in the service of the United States for one of the three purposes listed in Clause 15, its function is to help in its own State – however the need arises. And in Federalist No. 46, James Madison says the Militia is to defend the State from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical.[7]

  1. Who has the authority to call forth the Militia into service of the United States?

Article I, §8, clause 15 authorizes Congress to “provide for” calling forth the Militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. How does Congress “provide for” calling forth the Militia into the service of the United States?

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795 [link] which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion or enforce the laws of the United States. The Court pointed out that the power had been entrusted by Congress to the President, and said that,

“We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

So! In the Militia Act of 1795, Congress “provided for” calling forth the Militia by delegating to the President the power to determine when it was advisable to call the Militia into national service to repel an invasion or to execute the laws of the Union.[8]

  1. Transformation of the Militia into the federally controlled National Guard

During the early 1900s, Americans elected Progressives [Fabian socialists] to office. And these “Progressives” commenced the conquest of our Country. They had to eliminate the threat the Militia posed to the totalitarian federal government they intended to create. So with the “Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903” (the “Dick Act”) [link], Congress federalized the Militia. And this is how the Militia of the several States, which is the primary defense of a Free People and the States against a tyrannical federal government [2nd Amendment], was put under federal control. And the States went along with it because their People were ignorant, short sighted, and bought off with federal appropriations for the new federalized “National Guard”.

So we don’t have an organized & trained Militia – now, we have federal troops – some on active duty in the Regular Military; others as weekend warriors in the Reserves or National Guard.

  1. Current Acts of Congress providing for calling forth the “Militia” (federal armed forces)

Today, the provisions of the US Code which address calling forth the “Militia”[9] into national service are: 10 USC §251, 10 USC §252, 10 USC §253, and 10 USC §254. Note that the President still has statutory authority to use his own Judgment respecting whether to send the “Militia” into any State:

  • to enforce the Laws of the United States [10 USC § 252];
  • to suppress uprisings which deprive the people of the rights, privileges and immunities, and protections recognized in the Constitution and secured by Law, and the State government isn’t protecting those rights [10 USC §253]; and
  • to suppress uprisings which oppose or obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States or impede the course of justice under those laws [10 USC § 253].
  1. Conclusion

Our Constitution is an elegant piece of work. Its parts are interconnected and fit together. So we must read each clause in the light shed by the other clauses and by the Principles of our Founding as set forth in our Declaration of Independence. We must never insert our own biases – no matter what they are.

One of the most valuable characteristics of our federal system is the ability of the state and federal governments to be “checks” on each other. In Federalist No. 28 (7th para), Alexander Hamilton says,

“… in a confederacy[10] the people … may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general []national or federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. …”

We would be wise to celebrate the President’s constitutional and statutory authority to protect us from the death and destruction being brought about – with the connivance of State & local officials – by the Marxist revolutionaries. When State and local governments refuse to protect their people from such death and destruction, the President has a clear power to intervene.

Now, we must start electing Presidents who know and obey our Constitution.[11]

© 2020 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

1- Our Framers thought of everything – including rogue State governments. See, e.g, Federalist No. 28.

2- One of the themes of Proverbs is that a wise man listens and increases his understanding. Be wise.

3- To be CINC means that the President has the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy (Federalist No. 69).

4- Let that clause sink in!Our Framers did not want a standing Army [go here and search for “standing armies”] – that’s why appropriations for the regular Army were limited to two years (Art. I, § 8, cl. 12). National defense, enforcement of federal laws, & suppressing Insurrections were to be the responsibility of the Militia. When the federal gov’t needs to enforce its laws, it is to call forth the Militia – the armed and trained Citizens – to do the enforcing! During the Washington Administration, the federal gov’t called forth the Militia to enforce the federal excise tax on whiskey. Federal law enforcement is thus the province of the Citizens – the Militia! It is most manifestly NOT the province of armed thugs in the employ of the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t.

5- Pursuant to §2 of the Militia Act of 1792, federal officers & employees were exempted from service in the Militia. Can you figure out why they were exempted?

6- The arms, ammunition and accoutrements so acquired by the Militia Man were his personal property and were held free from claims of all creditors. They could not be seized and sold in payment for any judgments, debts or taxes. See last sentence of §1 of the Militia Act of 1792.

7- This is why Article II, §2, clause 1provides that the President is CINC of the Militia only when it is called into national service. This is also why §2 of the Militia Act of 1792 exempts all federal officers and employees from service in the Militia.

8- The Militia Act of 1795 also provided that in cases of insurrection against a State government, the President could send in the Militia upon request of the State Legislature or Governor.

9- Even though we no longer have a “militia” within the meaning of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; the current US Code uses the term in order to connect the activities of the federal armed forces with Art. I, §8, clause 15.

10- Our Constitution created a “federation” (“confederation”) of sovereign states which were united together for the sole purposes enumerated in the US Constitution.

11- I may have been wrong to fault President Trump for not sending the National Guard into the States to suppress the Insurrections.  In The Coming Coup? [link], Michael Anton writes:

“…It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at. Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”

“If that is true, then the President should fire Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and should “purg[e] the [military] officer corps of anyone not down with the program and promoting only those who are.”



Why the States Must Nullify the National Voter Registration Act Now!

Publius Huldah

From the earliest days of our Republic,[1] some years before our federal Constitution of 1787 was ratified;[2] the Citizens of the States determined the qualifications for voting, and memorialized these qualifications in their State Constitutions.  In keeping with this hallowed practice, the Citizens of North Carolina recently amended Article VI of their State Constitution to add to the Qualifications for voting the requirement that persons voting in person present a photo ID [link].

But lawsuits have been filed in federal court objecting to the photo ID’s; and the judge on one of them, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs [Mid. Dist. North Carolina], has announced that she will issue a preliminary injunction against the requirement that voters present a photo ID.  North Carolina election officials scurried to comply with Judge Biggs’ announcement; and Republican politicians called for an appeal [link].

The purpose of this paper is to show a better way to proceed – to show how North Carolina can enforce the US Constitution and the qualifications for voting set forth in its State Constitution.

We begin by looking at what our federal Constitution says about qualifications of voters.

  1. Ourfederal Constitution enshrines the pre-existing practice

where States set the qualifications for voters

In our federal Constitution of 1787,the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters:  Article I, §2, cl. 1, US Constit., says,

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

So! Under our federal Constitution, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are, by definition, the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives.

The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provided that those who were eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House would also be eligible to vote for the US Senators.

With four later amendments, the States decided that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay taxes (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment).

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

  1. Voting fraud

But today, we all know that, due to the federal government’s long continuing refusal[3] to control immigration[4] and protect the States from Invasion,[5] illegal aliens are flooding into our Country.  In at least 15 States, illegals may get drivers’ licenses [link] [link]; and with California’s “motor voter law”, illegals are automatically registered to vote when they get a drivers’ license![6]

Furthermore, there are Precincts in this Country where well over 100% of the registered voters turn out to vote [link]!This Georgia Precinct had a 243% voter turnout!

Our elections are also corrupted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article [here].  Murdock shows that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who don’t exist are registered to vote.  For North Carolina, Murdock finds 189,721 ghost voters.  Virginia has 89,979 ghost voters.But that’s a pittance compared to California which “is a veritable haunted house, teeming with 1,736,556 ghost voters.”

When you add California’s 1,736,556 ghost voters to the illegal aliens who also vote there (thanks to “Motor Voter”)[7] and understand that this problem is nation-wide; who can deny that the States need to man-up and clean up their corrupt voting systems? The federal government has no constitutional authority to clean up the voting rolls;[8] but the States have the inherent and retained duty and power to do so.

By requiring photo IDs, the Citizens of North Carolina have taken a first step towards getting rid of some of those 189,721 ghosts, plus the illegals,who corrupt elections within their State.

  1. The Federal Government has usurped the States’ expressly retained power to set qualifications for Voters

In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) [link], wherein they unlawfully seized power to dictate voter registration procedures (for federal elections) for the entire Country.

By dictating the registration procedures each State must use, and by mandating the voter registration form[the “federal form”] each State must use when registering voters;the NVRA stripped the States of their power to determine whether voters in their State meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitutions. It thus prohibits the States from enforcing the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitutions![9]

This is shown by what happened in Arizona:

The Constitution of the State of Arizona restricts voting to Citizens.  During 2004, the People of Arizona (which had been overrun with illegal aliens) adopted an initiative (Proposition 200) which required those in Arizona who apply to register to vote, to provide documentary proof of citizenship.  But a lawsuit was filed in federal court; and the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 doesn’t require applicants for voter registration to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it.

Thereafter, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the US Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [link].

I wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s opinion [here] and the Supreme Court’s opinion [here].  Both opinions are monuments to judicial incompetence – or worse.  The assertions made by the Courts in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments are demonstratively false.  The majority opinion of the Supreme Court is also logically incoherent.

But here we are: The Supreme Court has held that since the federally mandated voter registration form doesn’t require that persons registering to vote provide proof of citizenship, the States may not require it.  What this means, in practice, is that the States must register anyone who fills out the federal form.

  1. So where does this leave North Carolina?

The federal voter registration form may be seen (in 15 different languages) [here].

The federal form doesn’t require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID. Therefore, consistent with Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., North Carolina may not require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID.

May North Carolina require voters to present a photo ID when they show up to vote? The Supreme Court hasn’t directly addressed this;[10] but consider that since the federal government requires the States to register anyone who fills out the federal form, why would the feds permit the States to deny exercise of the suffrage to any name which is “registered”?

We already know how U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs is going to rule – and her ruling is consistent with the Supreme Court’s lawless holding in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

  1. Are There any Men in North Carolina?

The 7th paragraph of our Declaration of Independence recites how the Colonists opposed with manly firmness the King’s invasions on the rights of the people.

Are there any politicians in North Carolina today who will oppose the federal government’s invasions on the rights of the Citizens of North Carolina to set and enforce requirements for voting within their State?

A State Attorney General with brains and a spine would inform the federal judge that North Carolina won’t participate in the litigation; that she may issue all the Orders and Judgments she wants – North Carolina will ignore them – because (if she obeys the Supreme Court instead of the federal and State Constitutions) her Orders and Judgments will be void as in violation of Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution; and as in violation of the Sovereign Rights of North Carolina to enforce their own Constitution respecting voter qualifications.

What could a federal judge do about such a principled response from North Carolina? She has no Army. She has no power to enforce her judgments. She has to depend on the Executive Branch of the Federal government to enforce her judgments.[11]

So we would find out whether Trump actually means it when he says he wants honest elections, or whether he is just another fake “conservative”.  If he is a fake, he will send in the National Guard to enforce the Judge’s unconstitutional judgment.But if Trump lives up to his words about the need for honest elections [link]; then he will refuse to send in the National Guard to enforce the unconstitutional Judgment; and North Carolina will have won the Battle and set a noble example for other States to follow.

  1. Conclusion

The Deep State which controls the federal government doesn’t want elections cleaned up – they need dirty elections to get their henchmen in office.  So they have embarked upon a course of action (such as the NVRA) to try to prevent the States from cleaning up elections.  So, for Heaven’s Sake! Man up and resist! Our Framers always advised the States to resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government [link] [link]! We will never get honest elections unless the States man up and reclaim their rightful authority over their own voter rolls.Do it before you lose the political power to do it.

© 2020 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] From 1778 to 1789, we operated under our first federal Constitution, the Articles of Confederation [link].

[2] Our present federal Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 [link].

[3] Both political parties have embraced the Globalists’ open borders policy -both parties have failed to secure our Borders.

[4] Art. I, §9, cl. 1, US Constit., delegates to Congress as of January 1, 1808, the power to control immigration.

[5] Art. IV, §4, US Constit., requires the federal government to protect each of the States against Invasion.

[6] During 2013, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses[link]; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional National Voter Registration Act, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote [link].

[7] So with a “National Popular Vote” for President, or to ratify a new Constitution (if the mode of ratification for the new Constitution is a national referendum), it would be easy to steal the outcome!  Illegal aliens and “ghost voters” in California alone would determine the outcome for the entire Country.

[8] President Trump’s Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017, which purported to establish a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” [link], is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

[9] Justice Thomas understands this: Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration of those who were, pursuant to their State Constitution, qualified to vote. The function of registration of voters is so that the States may determine whether the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitution have been met!  Justice Thomas points out in his dissent in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. at II. A. 2:

“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.

Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.” [italics added].

[10] In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion [link], Scalia mentioned (4th para down from top) that Arizona’s Proposition 200 also required voters “to present identification when they vote on election day”; but he did not grace us with an answer as to whether States may require voters to prove that they are who they say they are when they show up to vote.

[11]As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 78, the Judicial Branch is the weakest branch. All they can do is issue orders and judgments – they can’t enforce their orders and judgments.  They must rely on the Executive Branch to carry them out:

“… the judiciary… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [caps are Hamilton’s; italics added]



USMCA “Trade Agreement”, the North American Union, an Article V convention, and Red Flag Laws:  Connecting the Dots

Publius Huldah

The Globalists have long been in the process of setting up a dictatorial and totalitarian oligarchy over the United States.  Now they are putting the last pieces in place.  That is what is behind the pushes for the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, an Article V convention, and red-flag and other laws to disarm the American People.  The Globalists want to move the United States into the North American Union.

USMCA “Trade Agreement”

The USMCA “Trade Agreement” is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement.  It provides for the economic and financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.   In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces;[1] it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.[2]

Every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, and appendix of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is in blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

North American Union

The North American Union brings about the political integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  The Task Force Report on Building a North American Community [link] sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations provides for (among other horrors):

  • increasing the “cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries.” The Report thus indicates that the plan is to combine the functions of law enforcement and the militaries of the three countries, so as to create a militarized police force consisting of Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans (pages 10-12).[3]
  • a North American Advisory Council, with members appointed by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, to staggered multiyear terms to “provide a public voice for North America”; and a “North American Inter-Parliamentary Group” which will have bilateral meetings every other year; and a trinational interparliamentary group to meet in the alternating year (pages 31-32).

To merge the functions of our police and military and combine it with those of Canada and Mexico;[4] and to permit a Parliament to be set up over and above the United States, is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution.  But this is what the Globalists and the Political Elite of both parties want.  Before they can impose it on us, they need to get a new Constitution for the United States.

An Article V Convention

And that’s the purpose of an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for this Country which legalizes the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union.

But Americans don’t want another constitution, and they don’t want to be moved into the North American Union.

So!  Some of those pushing for an Article V convention, such as the “Convention of States Project” (COS) are marketing a convention to appeal to conservatives.  COS and their allies such as Mark Levin claim to be for limited government and say they want a convention to get amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”.  Sadly, those who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers [they are listed on this one page Chart] fall for the marketing.[5]

But some of those pushing for an Article V convention, and certainly those financing the push for a convention,[6] actually do intend to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”; and they intend to do it by transferring the powers our Constitution delegates to the federal government (plus the powers reserved to the States or the People) to the global government which they are setting up over us.[7]

This Flyer shows why Delegates to an Article V convention (called for the ostensible purpose of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution) have the right and power to ignore their instructions and impose a new Constitution which puts us under a completely new Form of government – such as the North American Union.  

Red flag Laws & Gun Confiscation

When Americans finally see what has been done and how they have been deceived, they will be angry.  That’s why they must be disarmed now.  But all federal gun control laws for the Country at Large are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress; as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; and as in violation of the Second Amendment.  And any pretended State law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power (granted by Art. I, §8, cl. 16) to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”, is also unconstitutional [link].  

Red flag laws also violate the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, §2; and the due process clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment. US Senator Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) malignant red flag law [link] appropriates a total of $100 Million to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the red flag legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.

And Trump says respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” [link].

Stop the Globalists: Oppose the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and an Article V Convention

While the Trump Administration hammers the Globalists’ nails into our coffin, his trusting supporters censor criticism of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” – even though the Agreement is so long and incorporates so many other Agreements it is unlikely that any of them (including Trump) have read it.

And demagogues in the pay of Globalists have convinced constitutionally illiterate Americans that the solution to all our problems is to get an Article V convention.

© 2019 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Christian Gomez: USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union & What’s Really in the USMCA?  Publius Huldah: The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

[2] Publius Huldah: So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?

[3] Meanwhile, the UN is building a global military & police force.  See “United Nations Peacekeeping” [link] and think of the ramifications of such a militarized global police force.  Who will be able to resist?

[4] Mexico’s culture is notoriously criminal.  If we permit Globalists to get an Article V convention and a new Constitution which moves the United States into the North American Union, you can expect to see militarized Mexican police operating within our [former] Country.  And soon, they will be wearing blue helmets.

[5] It is possible that Mark Levin and the hirelings promoting a convention (such as Mark Meckler, 6 Tom Coburn [link], and Jim DeMint [link]) don’t know what the actual agenda is.  And it is almost certain that COS’s constitutionally illiterate celebrity endorsers and lemmings don’t know.  People who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers, and that our problems are caused by ignoring the Constitution we have, are easily deceived by the ridiculous claim that we must amend our Constitution to make the federal government obey it.

Our Framers always understood that the purpose of an Article V Convention is to get a new Constitution [link].  This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and four US Supreme Court Justices, among others, warned against it [link].

[6] It is the Globalists, primarily the Kochs and George Soros, who are funding the push for an Article V convention.  See, e.g.,

  • Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution [link].
  • George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution [link]

[7] The transfer of power from our federal government to global government by means of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is illustrated here.



Article 5 of the US Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) Isn’t Telling You

Publius Huldah

1. Article 5 provides two ways to amend our Constitution: Congress (1) proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification (this was done with our existing 27 Amendments); or (2) calls a convention for proposing amendments if two thirds of the State Legislatures apply for it. We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous![1]

2. But today, various well-funded factions are lobbying State Legislators to ask Congress to call an Article V convention. One faction, the “Convention of States Project” (COS), claims to be for limited government and is marketing the convention to appeal to conservatives. COS claims (falsely) that our Framers told us to amend the Constitution when the federal government violates the Constitution.[2]

3. COS’s claim is absurd – it’s like saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.

4. COS’s claim is false. Not only did our Framers never say what COS claims,

  • Our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a small handful of enumerated powers (they are listed on this one page chart).[3] Furthermore, it’s impossible to rein in the federal government with amendments because when the feds usurp powers not delegated, they are ignoring the existing constitutional limitations on their powers.
  • All of the proposed amendments produced by COS and their sympathizers markedly INCREASE the powers of the federal government by delegating powers the federal government has already usurped; by granting new powers to the federal government; by transferring power from Representatives elected by the People to the Deep State; or by stripping States of their existing sovereign powers.[4] See:

Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments: legalizing tyranny,

COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there,

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster,

Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

Wolf PAC’s Amendment for “fair and free elections”, and

Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure [5]

5. So what’s the real agenda of those (primarily George Soros and the Kochs) who are financing the push for a convention? A convention provides the opportunity to replace our existing Constitution with a new constitution which moves us into a completely new system of government, such as the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are economically and politically integrated and a Parliament and combined militarized police force are set up over them.[6]

The phrase within Article V, “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, doesn’t restrict the Delegates to the Convention to merely proposing Amendments.  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that a People have the “self-evident Right” to throw off their government and set up a new government.[7] We’ve already invoked that Right twice:  In 1776 we invoked it to throw off the British Monarchy; and in 1787, James Madison invoked it to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), and set up a new Constitution [the one we now have] which created a new government.

This is what happened:

There were defects in the AOC, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia

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

But the Delegates ignored their instructions from Congress, and similar instructions from their States[8] and wrote a new Constitution which created a new government.  Furthermore, the new Constitution had its own new mode of ratification:  Whereas amendments to the AOC had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States;[9] the new Constitution provided at Article VII thereof, that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a Delegate to the Federal “amendments” Convention of 1787, invoked that same Right as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions and writing a new Constitution which created a new government.[10]

6. If we have a convention today, the Delegates will have that same power to get rid of our second Constitution and impose a third Constitution. New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works!  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, is ratified by a national referendum (See Art. XII, §1). The States don’t vote on it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

7. So why was the convention method added to Article V? The Anti-federalists wanted it added because they wanted another convention so they could get rid of the Constitution just drafted.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method were in Article V or not.  So this is why Madison and Hamilton went along with adding the convention method to Article V; and this is why, as early as April 1788, they and our future first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay started warning against another convention.

8. Using the pretext of merely getting amendments, the Globalists want a convention so they can complete their coup against us and get a new Constitution which moves us into the New World Order.

9. States should rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] That is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other jurists & scholars warn against it!  See their words HERE.

[2] See Michael Farris’s quote HERE. None of our Framers said such a silly thing as Farris claims!  Our Framers actually said the purpose of Amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution; and they all knew that the real purpose of a convention is to get another constitution.

[3] IGNORANCE is our problem.  Americans don’t know what our Constitution says.  Can you recite by heart the enumerated powers granted to Congress over the Country at Large?

[4] Mark Levin’s amendment to “grant the States authority to check Congress” [p. 169 of “The Liberty Amendments”] provides that three-fifths of the state legislatures may vote to override a federal statute and certain Executive Branch regulations provided that the States do so within a certain time period.  When that time period has expired, the States are forever prohibited from exercising the override.

Levin’s amendment would strip the States of their long recognized individual natural right – much written about by our Framers – to NULLIFY all acts of any Branch of the federal government which violate our Constitution. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense  and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

[5] The federal term limits amendment would transfer power from US Senators and Representatives (elected by the People) to the Deep State (a massive body of nameless, faceless, and unelected bureaucrats who would become the PERMANENT AND TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNING BODY).

[6] For the Love of God, your Country and your posterity, READ the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU. This is what the Establishment Elite want and can get with a convention!

[7] The Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” (the Fundamental Law) of our Land.

[8] This Delegate Flyer summarizes the instructions the States gave the Delegates.

[9] See ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation.

[10] In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison says the Delegates knew that reform such as was set forth in the new Constitution was necessary for our peace and prosperity.  They knew that sometimes great and momentous changes in established governments are necessary – and a rigid adherence to the old government takes away the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” … “and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens…”.



So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?

Publius Huldah

Yes he does.  The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air[1] which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt),[2] in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders;[3] and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.[4]

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.

Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart.[5]

So what are we going to do about it?  Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?

Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard;[6] but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that.  The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system.  And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:

“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that this scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”

1- The IMF and the international fiat “money” system

The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.

The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR).  The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.

USMCA Art. 33.1 shows that the IMF is to monitor our compliance with the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (please let that sink in).

  • Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.
  • Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.

USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency.[7]

As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.

Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA:  All those areas:  agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment,  etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.

And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.

Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government.[8]

And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.

2- What our Constitution provides about money

Our Framers created a Constitution which delegates only “few and defined” powers to the federal government.  This one page chart lists those powers.

Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers.  So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3.[9]

Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense.[10]

Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:

  • Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”
  • Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;[11] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins.  Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins.   During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.

A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers.  Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

3- Why the Federal Reserve System was established

“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”?  Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

When the Progressives[12] took over our Country during the early 1900s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes.  But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted.  So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted.[13]

So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.

With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs:  State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government.  A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.  If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent.  For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT.  But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.

Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment.

How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t?[14]

If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today.  If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.

4- What States can do

In Part 4 of his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series at sub point [3] and in Part 5, Dr. Edwin Vieira shows how States can protect their Citizens from disaster by setting up an alternative gold currency.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction:  See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.

Open your eyes, Americans.  Time is running out.

© 2019 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed. 

[2] Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?

[3] HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold.  During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise:  HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.

[4] See 31 USC §5118.

[5] The Fed Has Lost Control

[6] The quiet campaign to reinstate the gold standard is getting louder

[7] See Joan Veon HERE:

“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system.  This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.”  [italics added]  You can also see her video HERE.

[8] See:  USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union  and The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

[9] HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States.  It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3.  (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)

[10] In Federalist No. 41 (5th para up from bottom), Madison says:

“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”

[11] Congress is not authorized to create paper money.  In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:

[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]

[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]

When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”.  We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.

[12] In the 1880s, the Fabian Society was founded in England.  Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution].  They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.]  In the early 1900s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”.  Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.

[13] or an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at endnotes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE.  Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.

[14] And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.



Read the Commerce Clause in the Light Cast by the Other Parts of Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

The parts of our federal Constitution are so interrelated that it is impossible to understand a single clause therein without considering all of the other provisions of our Constitution.

Article I, §8, clause 3, US Constitution, states:

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The original intent of the power to regulate commerce “among the several States” is proved here:  Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance?  That paper proves that the primary purpose of the power is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

But recently, some have asserted that since “foreign Nations”, “the several States”, and “the Indian Tribes” are grouped together in the same clause, it necessarily follows that Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” with each of them is identical.  And since Congress has broad powers over foreign commerce, they conclude that Congress has those same broad powers over interstate commerce, and may lawfully, for example, ban the movement of physical goods [such as firearms] across state lines.

So let’s look at that clause in the Light cast by the rest of the Constitution.

Three totally different and separate entities

Three entities are listed in the same clause at Art. I, §8, cl. 3; but we may not properly conclude that the extent and nature of the regulation permitted over the three entities is the same.  That’s because each entity has a distinctly different status, and is treated accordingly in the Constitution.

The several States

The States are the sovereign entities which created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. At Art. I, §10, the States agreed that they would not individually exercise the power to make commercial and trade treaties with foreign Nations;  but would exercise that power collectively by delegating to the “creature” of the Constitution – the national government – the power to make such Treaties (Art. II, §2, cl. 2).

The States have a high status:  They are The Members of the Federation the States created when they ratified our Constitution.  The federal government is merely the “creature” of the constitutional compact the States made with each other when they ratified the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms.

Foreign Nations

Various provisions are relevant to the power the States delegated to Congress respecting commerce with foreign Nations:

  • Pursuant to its treaty making power granted at Art. II, §2, cl. 2, the United States may make treaties with foreign nations addressing a great many commercial and trade matters, territorial and fishing waters [our ships won’t fish within X miles of your shoreline, etc.], inspections of products, mutual assistance to merchant ships in distress at sea, assistance to each Party’s sick merchant seamen, etc.
  • I, §8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the power to levy “Duties, Imposts [tariffs on imports] and Excises”. As they did with the infamous Tariff Act of 1828, Congress has the power to shut down imports from foreign Nations by imposing exorbitant tariffs.
  • I, §8, cl. 10, grants to Congress power to define Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. Congress may ban or restrict commerce with foreign nations who fail to rein in their countrymen who are operating pirate ships or violate the Law of Nations.
  • I, §8, cl. 11, grants to Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. Congress may restrict or ban commerce with warring foreign nations and their allies, and make rules about seizing their cargo (“bounty”).
  • Imports and exports are unloaded and loaded at dockyards over which the federal government has (pursuant to Art. I, §8, next to last clause) exclusive legislative authority. Congress may make whatever inspection laws need to be made to protect us from contaminated imports – such as agricultural products infested with bugs or diseases, other contaminated products, etc. [1]

So Congress’ power to “regulate commerce with foreign Nations” is exercised by means of Treaties the United States makes with foreign Nations, and by means of Laws made by Congress.  In the course of exercising this delegated power, the Legislative and Executive Branches have broad authority to restrict or ban commerce with foreign Nations, and determine its parameters.

Congress has no such powers over the Member States.[2]

Indian Tribes

In Federalist No. 24 (10th & 11th paras), Hamilton speaks of the necessity of keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier which are necessary to protect “against the ravages and depredations of the Indians”; and that some of these posts (garrisons) “will be keys to the trade with the Indian nations.”

In Federalist No. 42 (11th para), Madison speaks of the unsettled status of Indians and says this has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils.

So!  It is a clear misconstruction of Art. I, §8, cl. 3 to assert that Congress has the same power to regulate commerce between the Member States that it does to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and the Indian Tribes.

James Madison’s letter of February 13, 1829 to J.C. Cabell

In Madison’s letter of February 13, 1829 to J.C. Cabell, he warns that the claim that the power to regulate commerce with the three entities is identical, is superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

He then says, as to the power to “regulate Commerce among the States”:

“… it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse* of the power by the importing States, in taxing the non-importing; and was intended as a negative & preventive provision agst. injustice among the States themselves; rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Govt. in which alone however the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend to it all the qualities & incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce…” [italics added]

*see the Federalist No 42.”

So Madison warns that we better stick with the original understanding; and not interpret the clause to mean that the federal government has the same broad power over interstate commerce that it has over commerce with the foreign Nations and with the Indian Tribes.

© 2019 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1]- The fed gov’t can’t lawfully ban imports of guns and arms because (1) gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the fed gov’t over the Country at Large, and (2) the 2nd Amendment prohibits the fed gov’t from infringing our right to keep and bear arms.  A disarmed citizenry is inconsistent with Congress’ obligation, imposed by Art. I, §8, cls 15 & 16, to provide for the arming and training of the Militia of the several States.  To see what it was like when we elected to Congress people who knew and obeyed our Constitution, read the Militia Act of 1792.  But until We The People learn our Constitution, we will continue to elect ignoramuses to Congress.  We cannot be ignorant and free – and you can’t see that a candidate is ignorant unless you are knowledgeable.

[2]- Domestically, Congress has the power to impose excise taxes on specific articles in commerce. For a discussion of “imposts”, “excises” and the Whiskey Rebellion, see The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax.



How States Can Man-Up And Stop Abortion

If the American People [and American lawyers] had been properly educated, they would know that our federal Constitution created a federal government of enumerated powers only; and that most of the powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large are listed at Art. I, §8, clauses 1-16, US Constitution.

“Abortion” is not listed among the enumerated powers. Therefore, Congress has no power to make any laws about abortion for the Country at Large.[1]  And since “abortion” isn’t “expressly contained” in the Constitution, it doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution; and since state laws restricting abortion don’t fit within any of the other categories of cases the federal courts are authorized by Art. III, §2, cl. 1 to hear, the federal courts also have no power over this issue.

So from the beginning of our Constitutional Republic until 1973, everyone understood that abortion is a State matter.  Accordingly, many State Legislatures enacted statutes restricting abortion within their borders.

But in 1973, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade and made the absurd claim that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment contains a “right” to abortion.  In Why Supreme Court opinions are not the ‘Law of the Land,’ and how to put federal judges in their place, I showed why the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe is unconstitutional.

But Americans have long been conditioned to believe that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.[2] Accordingly, for close to 50 years, American lawyers and federal judges have mindlessly chanted the absurd refrain that “Roe v. Wade is the Law of the Land”; State governments slavishly submitted; and 60 million babies died.

So who has the lawful authority to stop abortion?

1- Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion in federal enclaves and military hospitals

Over the federal enclaves, Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion:  Pursuant to Article I, §8, next to last clause, Congress is granted “exclusive Legislation” over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-Yards, and other places purchased with the consent of the State Legislatures (to carry out the enumerated powers).[3]  Article I, §8, cl.14 grants to Congress the power to make Rules for the government and regulation of the Military Forces.  Accordingly, for the specific geographical areas described at Article I, §8, next to last clause, and in US military hospitals everywhere, Congress has the power to make laws banning abortion.

2- But federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion

Article III, §2, cl. 1 lists the ten categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear.  They may hear only cases:

  • “Arising under” the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
  • Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];
  • Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects [“diversity” jurisdiction]. [4]

These are the only cases federal courts have authority to hear.  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.”  [boldface added]

Obviously, State laws restricting abortion don’t fall within “status of the parties” or “diversity” jurisdiction; and federal courts haven’t claimed jurisdiction on those grounds.  Instead, they have asserted that abortion cases “arise under” the US Constitution!

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

“…the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the US Constitution]…” [5]  [boldface added]

Obviously, “abortion” is not “expressly contained” in the Constitution.  So it doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution.  In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had to redefine the word, “liberty”, which appears in §1 of the 14th Amendment, in order to claim that “abortion” “arises under” the Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface added] [6]

Do you see where it says that pregnant women have the “right” to abortion?  It isn’t there!  So this is what the Supreme Court did to legalize killing babies:  They said “liberty” means “privacy” and “privacy” means state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional.  And American lawyers and judges have slavishly gone along with this evil absurdity ever since!

3- States must reclaim their traditionally recognized reserved power to restrict abortion!

Since “abortion” is a power reserved by the States or the People, State Legislatures should reenact State Statutes restricting abortion.

When a lawsuit is filed in Federal District Court alleging that the State Statute violates the US Constitution, the State Attorney General should file a motion in the Court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  He should point out that the Court has no constitutional authority to hear the case; that Roe v. Wade is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that “abortion” is one of the many powers reserved by the States; and that the State Legislature properly exercised its retained sovereign power when it re-enacted the Statue restricting abortion.

The State Attorney General should also advise the Court that if the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss, the State will not participate in the litigation and will not submit to any pretended Orders or Judgments issued by the Court.

Now!  Here is an interesting fact which everyone would already know if they had had a proper education in civics:  Federal courts have no power to enforce their own Judgments and Orders.  They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce their Judgments and Orders.[7]

Since President Trump has proclaimed his opposition to abortion, who believes that he would send in the National Guard to force the State to allow physicians to kill more babies within the State?  Please understand:  An opinion or ruling from a federal court means nothing unless the Executive Branch chooses to enforce it.[8]  THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH’S “CHECK” ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment, thinks that an Order or Judgment of a federal court is unconstitutional, it is his duty imposed by his Oath of Office [9] to refuse to enforce it.

4- The modern day approach to dealing with absurd Supreme Court Opinions

But most pro-life lawyers will tell you we should proceed as follows:  That we need to get a number of States to pass “heartbeat laws”.  Pro-abortion forces will then file lawsuits in federal district courts alleging that the heartbeat laws violate Roe v. Wade and are “unconstitutional”.  Most States will lose in the federal district courts.  But they can appeal to one of the 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeal. Most of the States will also lose in the Circuit Court.  But if just one Circuit Court rules in favor of the heartbeat law, then there will be “conflict” among the Circuits and the US Supreme Court is likely to hear the issue.  This will give the US Supreme Court the opportunity [years from now] to revisit Roe v. Wade, and they might overrule it!

But I suggest, dear Reader, that we must purge our thinking of the assumption that we can’t have a moral and constitutional government unless Five Judges on the Supreme Court say we can have it.  Since it is clear that federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion, why do we go along with the pretense that they do?  Why not just man-up and tell them, “You have no jurisdiction over this issue”?

Our Framers would be proud of you.

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Accordingly, the federal Heartbeat Bill and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to the extent they purport to apply outside federal enclaves and military hospitals, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large.

[2] The Supreme Court was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms.  As a mere “creature”, it may not re-write the document under which it holds its existence.

[3] In Federalist No. 43 at 2., James Madison explains why Congress must have complete lawmaking authority over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves.

[4] The 11th Amendment reduced the jurisdiction of federal courts by taking from them the power to hear cases filed by a Citizen of one State against another State.

[5] Federalist No. 80 (3rd & 13th paras) illustrates what “arising under the Constitution” means: Hamilton points to the restrictions on the power of the States listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a State exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov’t sues the State, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.

[6] “Privileges and immunities” and “due process” are ancient Principles of English Jurisprudence well-known to earlier generations of American lawyers. “Equal protection” within §1 of the 14th Amd’t means that with respect to the rights recognized by these ancient Principles, States were now required to treat black people the same as white people.  See Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[7] In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows why federal courts have no power to enforce their orders and judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them:

“… the judiciary… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [caps are Hamilton’s; boldface added]

[8] During the Eisenhower administration, a federal court ordered the State of Arkansas to desegregate their public schools. But the Governor of Arkansas refused to comply with the federal court orders. So President Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to force Arkansas to admit black students to a public school. See this archived article from the New York Times.

Here, Eisenhower chose to enforce the Court’s Order. But if he had decided that he would NOT enforce it, the schools would have remained segregated.  Federal courts are dependent on the Executive Branch of the fed. gov’t to enforce their Orders! This is what Hamilton is talking about in Federalist No. 78.

[9] The President’s Oath is to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Art. II, §1, last clause).   It is not to obey the Judicial Branch of the fed. gov’t.



The USMCA “Trade Agreement” Violates Our Constitution And Sets Up Global Government

On November 30, 2018, President Trump, along with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico, signed the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) “Trade Agreement”. “Trade” is in quotes, because the document isn’t about “trade” – it’s about setting up global government. “Agreement” is in quotes because the document is a “treaty” – and that invokes the two-thirds ratification requirement of Art. II, §2, cl. 2, US Constitution.

The USMCA Treaty (“Treaty”) was negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer.  He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which works to move the United States into the North American Union (NAU).[1]

The Treaty advances the economic and regulatory integration of the three Parties.  It is the precursor to the political integration the globalists seek with the NAU.[2]

  1. Summary of objections to the Treaty

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the “organic law” of our Land.[3] 3 Treaties, like Acts of Congress, hold a lesser status:  they are part of “the supreme Law of the Land” only when they are authorized by “organic law” – our Constitution (Art. VI, cl.2).[4]

While the United States is clearly authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.3 & Art. II, §2, cl.2, US Constit., to enter into Treaties with foreign Nations addressing Commerce;[5] the United States may not lawfully transfer to global or multi-national bodies, powers which “WE THE PEOPLE” delegated to our federal government when We ratified our Constitution.  But that is what the Treaty purports to do.

Even worse, the Treaty also purports to delegate to global or multi-national bodies powers which We never delegated to our federal government – but reserved to the States or the people.

The Treaty establishes a bureaucratic multi-national government which is to control all aspects of commerce and to which the United States, Mexico and Canada will be subject.

The Treaty incorporates by reference many other documents.  Its frequent use of new terminology requires one to constantly refer to the various definition sections spread throughout the 34 Chapters.  It engages in the pernicious practice of making a statement, and then qualifying it by phrases such as, “unless otherwise provided in this Agreement” and “unless the Parties decide otherwise”.[6]

  1. Powers We delegated to our federal government

When the People of the United States ratified our Constitution, We “created” the federal government.  Article I created the Legislative Branch and itemized its powers. Article II created the Executive Branch and itemized its powers.  Article III created the Judicial Branch and itemized its powers.  Each Branch of the federal government is thus a “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. None of the delegated powers may lawfully be re-delegated to global or multi-national bodies.

The Treaty violates the following provisions of our Constitution:

  • At Art. I, §1, We vested in Congress, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution.
  • At Art. I, §8, We granted to Congress the powers
    • Clause 1: To lay and collect Imposts (import tariffs)
    • Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
    • Clause 5: To coin Money and regulate the Value thereof
    • Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights
  • At Art. I, §9, cl. 1: Commencing January 1, 1808, We granted to Congress the power to control Migration (immigration) to the United States.
  • At Art. II, §2, cl. 2, We granted to the President the power to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
  • At Art. III, §2, cl. 1, We declared that the judicial Power of the United States shall extend
    • to all Cases arising under Treaties made under the Authority of the United States
    • to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party
  • At Art. IV, §4, We imposed upon the United States the duties to:
    • guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government; and
    • protect each of the States against Invasion.
  • At Art. VI, cl. 2, We declared that our Constitution, and Acts of Congress and Treaties authorized by the Constitution, is the “supreme Law of the Land”.
  • In the 10th Amendment, We declared that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people.

Art. I, §8, cl. 1 – to “lay and collect Imposts”

Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to set the amounts of the tariffs on foreign imports.

The Treaty divests Congress of the power to unilaterally determine our tariffs.  USMCA Art. 2.4 [7] says:

“1. Unless  otherwise  provided  in  this  Agreement,  no  Party  shall  increase  any  existing customs duty, or adopt any new customs duty, on an originating good.

  1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party shall apply a customs duty on an originating good in accordance with its Schedule to Annex 2-B (Tariff Commitments)”.

Art. I, §8, cl. 5 – to coin Money and regulate the Value thereof

Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to control our money.[8]

But with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress and Woodrow Wilson unlawfully transferred power over our money to an international cabal of privately owned banks – the “Federal Reserve”.

Shortly after WWII, the United States joined the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).[9] James Perloff’s article, Council On Foreign Relations – Influencing American Government, speaks of how the World Bank and IMF act as

“…a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.”

The Treaty surrenders the United States’ power over money and our economy to the IMF.  USMCA Art. 33.1 defines “Article IV Staff Report” as the report prepared by the IMF respecting a country’s adherence to Art. IV, Section 3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement.  Section 3 provides that the IMF shall oversee the compliance of each member with its obligations under Section 1 of Article IV.  Section 1 requires each member to “direct its economic and financial policies toward the objective of fostering orderly economic growth with reasonable price stability”, and to foster “orderly underlying economic and financial conditions and a monetary system that does not tend to produce erratic disruptions” [i.e., our economy is to be planned by the IMF].

Article IV, §3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement states that the IMF “shall exercise firm surveillance over the exchange rate policies of members”, and “shall adopt specific principles for the guidance of all members with respect to those policies”.  USMCA Art. 33.4 confirms that the three Countries are “bound under the IMF Articles of Agreement to avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system”; but private manipulators (George Soros) don’t seem to be bound by that restriction.

USMCA Art. 33.6 establishes a Macroeconomic Committee which “shall monitor the implementation of this Chapter and its further elaboration.”  Paragraph 5 of Art. 33.6 empowers the Committee to amend and issue “interpretations” of Chapter 33; and declares that such interpretations “shall be deemed to be an interpretation issued pursuant to a decision by consensus of the Commission.” USMCA Art. 1.4 defines “Commission” as “the Free Trade Commission” established under USMCA Art. 30.1.

  Art. I, §8, cl. 8 – to issue Patents and Copyrights

The purpose of delegating the power to issue Patents and Copyrights to Congress is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.

The Treaty subordinates these property rights to the collective.  USMCA Art. 20.2 states:

“The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.”

Article 20.3 prohibits the Parties from making any laws or regulations inconsistent with Chapter 20; and

requires that any measures to protect property rights be “consistent with the provisions of this Chapter”. The Parties are “to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders”.  Article 20.5 requires each Party to ensure “that measures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade” or “contravene this Chapter”.

Article 20.7 requires the Parties to ratify or accede to a long list of international “agreements” including the World International Property Organization’s  (WIPO) Patent Law Treaty. The WIPO is an agency of the United Nations.

The 64 pages of Chapter 20 have nothing to do with protection of property rights in Inventors. Instead, Chapter 20 subordinates ownership of those rights to the collective; and establishes the framework for global government of patents and copyrights.[10]

Art. I, §9, cl.1 grants to Congress power over Migration;

Art. IV, §4 requires the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion;

and Art. I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes the use of the Militia to repel invasions

Our Framers understood that control over who enters our Country is an essential element of sovereignty.

But the Treaty subordinates the United States’ sovereign power over immigration to global and multi-national bodies.  USMCA Art. 16.2 declares:

“3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.” [italics added]

Article 16.8 declares:

“Except for this Chapter, Chapter 1 (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), Chapter 30 (Administrative and Institutional Provisions), Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement), Chapter 34 (Final Provisions), Article 29.2 (Publication), and Article 29.3 (Administrative Proceedings), this Agreement does not impose an obligation on a Party regarding its immigration measures.” [italics added] [11]

USMCA Art. 23.1 cites the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work” (1998), as guiding the treatment of labor issues under the Treaty. The ILO is an agency of the United Nations (UN); and part of the ILO’s “social justice” agenda is to formulate “fair migration schemes in regional integration processes”.

So this is how the UN is to dictate immigration policy for the “regional integration” of Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Art. II, §2, cl. 2, grants to the President the power to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur

Chapter 30 of the Treaty establishes the Free Trade Commission.  It is the governing body of the bureaucracy which is created by the Treaty.  Among other powers, the Commission supervises the work of all committees and other subsidiary bodies established under the Treaty; has the power to merge or dissolve committees and other subsidiary bodies; and has the power to “consider” proposals to amend or modify the Treaty.  While Art. 30.2, 2. (c) lists six areas where modifications of the Treaty are subject to completion of “applicable legal procedures by each Party”, it does not require that other types of modifications of the Treaty be subject to such approval of the Parties.

And while USMCA Art. 34.3, 1. provides, “The Parties may agree, in writing, to amend this Agreement”, it doesn’t say that is the exclusive means of amendment.  Accordingly, we must consider Art. 34.3 as providing an additional means of amendment.

USMCA Article 30.2, 2. (f) grants to the Commission power to “issue interpretations” of the Treaty; and the footnote thereto says that its interpretations “are binding for tribunals and panels established under Chapter 14 (Investment) and Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement).”

And since, as noted above, the “interpretations” of Ch. 33 issued by the Macroeconomic Committee are considered as “interpretations” issued by the Free Trade Commission, the “interpretations” of the Macroeconomic Committee will also be binding on the tribunals deciding disputes between the Parties.

We thus permit the “creature” of the Treaty to modify the document under which it holds its existence![12]

Art. III, §2, cl. 1, grants to U.S. Courts the Power to decide all Cases arising under Treaties & all Controversies to which the United States is a Party.

In violation of our Constitution, the Treaty restricts the Parties to the dispute settlement procedures laid out in the Treaty.

Chapter 31 of the Treaty addresses resolution of disputes involving violations of the Treaty or “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission.  Disputes are heard by a panel of five drawn from a roster of up to 30 individuals appointed by the Parties. The panel is to make findings of fact and determinations and issue a report.  If the disputing Parties don’t agree on the report, the complaining Party may suspend various benefits held by the responding Party under the Treaty.

Article 31.3 limits the Parties’ choice of a forum for dispute resolution to that set forth in the Treaty or in another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are signatories.

Article 31.20 permits a Party to intervene in proceedings already pending in a domestic judicial or administrative forum which involve the interpretation or application of the Treaty.  The purpose of such intervention is to inform the domestic tribunal of the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission. Thus, the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued by the “creature” of the Treaty are to be foisted on our domestic courts and administrative law judges!

Note that Art. 31.21 expressly forbids a Party from making a law which grants a right of action against another Party on the ground that a measure of the other Party is inconsistent with the Treaty.

  1. Powers reserved by the States or the People which the Treaty transfers to global organizations

Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  Most of the powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at large are listed within Art. I, §8.  See this Chart.

Labor

We did not delegate to our federal government power over labor issues.  However, beginning in the early 1900s, we permitted our federal government to exercise, by usurpation, powers over labor issues.[13] As a result, we got the federal Department of Labor, a host of Acts of Congress addressing labor issues, and a plethora of Rules issued by the Department and published in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department, its Rules, and the Acts of Congress are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. The Rules are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1, US Constit.

Chapter 23 of the Treaty transfers those usurped powers to the United Nation’s International Labor Organization (ILO). 

Article 23.1 defines “labor laws” as the statutes and regulations of a Party that are directly related to “internationally recognized labor rights” such as the “right” to collective bargaining; and which require Parties to make laws to provide wage-related benefits payments for workers such as profit sharing, bonuses, retirement, and healthcare.

Here are some of the dictates set forth in the Treaty with which US laws and agency rules must comply:

  • At Art. 23.2, the Parties affirm their obligations stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work and Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
  • Article 23.3 dictates that “Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder,” various rights, as stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work; and “Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.”
  • Article 23.5 requires each Party to “effectively enforce its labor laws”.
  • Article 23.9 requires each Party to implement policies to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and caregiving responsibilities; and to provide job-protected leave for birth or adoption of a child and care of family members; and to protect against wage discrimination.[14]

Additional Reserved Powers transferred to global or multi-national bodies

The USMCA Treaty is long and complex: see the Table of Contents.  Here are brief comments on some of the other powers reserved by the States or the People which are unlawfully transferred by the Treaty:

  • Chapter 19 addresses digital trade. Article 19.5 requires each Party to maintain a legal framework governing electronic transactions consistent with the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996.  That model law is a product of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
  • Chapter 21 addresses competition policy. Article 21.1 requires each Party to maintain and enforce “national competition laws” which proscribe “anticompetitive business conduct”.  The Parties are to apply those laws to “all commercial activities in its territory.”  Article 21.4 requires each Party to adopt or maintain national consumer protection laws or regulations that proscribe fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities.
  • Chapter 24 addresses environmental laws. Article 24.3 requires each Party to ensure that its laws provide for high levels of environmental protection. Article 24.4 requires each Party to enforce its environmental laws.  Article 24.9 requires each Party to control the production and use of substances which deplete or change the ozone layer [and on & on for 30 pages].
  1. The Death of the Republican Form of Government

In a “republic”, the sovereign power is exercised by representatives elected by the People.

Article IV, §4, US Constit., requires the United States to guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

But the USMCA Treaty, time after time, delegates the exercise of sovereign power to various panels, Committees, Commissions, UN organizations, and others – not one of which is elected by the People.

  1. Don’t fall for the carrot dangled in your face!

The Treaty reportedly contains some tariff benefits to various industries in the United States such as the auto and dairy industries.  Their profits (at least for a while) should increase as a result of the Treaty.  And for that, We are to surrender our sovereignty to the globalists?!

  1. The 1815 Free Trade Treaty between the United States and Great Britain

On Dec. 6, 1815, President James Madison sent this treaty to the Senate for ratification.  It is two pages long.  Unlike the USMCA Treaty, it doesn’t set up a government over the United States and Great Britain—thus proving that trade treaties need not surrender our sovereignty.  And Madison’s treaty doesn’t require a lawyer skilled in sniffing out dirty tricks to understand what it does.

  1. Conclusion

In Federalist No. 22 (last para), Alexander Hamilton said that one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation (AOC), our first Constitution, was that it was never ratified by the PEOPLE. Because the only foundation for the AOC was the consent of state legislatures, questions had arisen concerning its validity.

This is why Art. VII of our second Constitution (the one we have now) provides for its ratification by Conventions held in each of the States.   In support of the ratification method set forth in Art. VII, Hamilton wrote:

“…The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” [caps are Hamilton’s].

This is why our Constitution begins with, “WE THE PEOPLE”.  WE consented to it.

But the USMCA Treaty sets up global government over the economic issues covered by the Treaty. It is NOT to be submitted to THE PEOPLE for their consent.  The globalists who infest our Legislative and Executive Branches (the latter of which, as the Perloff article points out, has been dominated by the Council on Foreign Relations for over 70 years) want the Treaty ratified by a simple majority vote in Congress.[15]

The USMCA Treaty is illegitimate; and the global government it imposes is tyrannical.

© 2019 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:  

1 Here is the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU.

2 The US Constitution is unique.  It is (1) a written Constitution (2) which created the federal government; (3) listed the handful of powers granted to the federal government; and (4) has as its Foundation the Consent of The People.  As our “Organic Law”, it is the standard by which the lawfulness of legislative Acts and Treaties is measured.  Its existence undermines the political integration of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.  That’s why the globalists want an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for the US which won’t stymie their plans.

3 “Organic law” is “the fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation…”

4 On the lesser status of treaties in relation to our Constitution: The objects on which the United States may enter into treaties are restricted to the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government – see authorities cited in this paper.  On the lesser status of Acts of Congress:  Federalist No. 78 (11th & 12th paras) says that when an Act of Congress violates the Constitution, “the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute”; judges “ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”

5 See authorities quoted here.

6 The treaty is long, intricate, and tricky. This paper addresses only parts of it.  We are insane to allow treaties “… so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…” Federalist No. 62 (4th para from end).

7 To get an idea of the extent of the regulations on custom duties, skim all 72 pages of Chapter 2.

8 And our money is to be based on gold & silver (Art. I, §10, cl. 1).  In Federalist No. 10 (next to last para), Madison warns against “A rage for paper money…or for any other improper or wicked project…”.

9 Perloff says the initial planning for the World Bank & IMF was by the Council on Foreign Relations.

10 Ayn Rand warned 60 years ago in Atlas Shrugged that if we didn’t change course, our Inventors and Authors would lose their property rights.

11 They left out Chapter 17, which addresses cross-border financial services.  Art. 17.5, 1. (d) (iv) declares:

“No Party shall adopt or maintain… a measure that…imposes a limitation on… the  total  number  of  natural  persons … that  a … cross-border financial service  supplier may  employ  and  who  are necessary  for,  and directly related to, the supply of  a specific  financial service…”

12 To allow the “creature” of a treaty to modify the treaty under which it holds its existence violates the Fundamental Principle of free government.  See this paper under subheading 1 and its endnotes.

13 Our Framers said that if we want the fed. gov’t to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power – we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation.  See this paper under the subheading, “Washington’s Farewell Address”.

14 The footnote to USMCA Art. 23.9 says the United States’ existing policies regarding the hiring of federal workers is sufficient to fulfill the obligations set forth in Art. 23.9. We can be sure that the requirements of Art. 23.9 will later be extended to all employment in the United States.

15 Twelve Republican US Senators, by letter of Nov. 20, 2018, urged Trump to send the “Agreement” right away so it could be passed by the lame duck session of Congress by a simple majority vote.



Why Supreme Court Opinions Are Not The “Law Of The Land”, And How To Put Federal Judges In Their Place

Central to the silly arguments made by the “Convention of States Project” (COSP) is their claim that 200 years of Supreme Court opinions have increased the powers of the federal government (as well as legalized practices such as abortion); that all these opinions are “the Law of the Land”; and we need an Article V convention so we can get amendments to the Constitution which take away all these powers the Supreme Court gave the federal government.

But the text of Article V contradicts COSP’s claim.  Article V shows that our Constitution can be amended only when three fourths of the States ratify proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution.  And it’s impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn’t grant.

  1. First Principles

Let’s analyze COSP’s silly argument.  We begin by looking at First Principles.

  • The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a “creature” of the Constitution.[1]
  • The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.[2]

Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms.  It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution;[3] and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence![4]

  1. Supreme Court Opinions are not “the Law of the Land”

Article VI, cl.2, US Constit., the “supremacy clause”, defines “supreme Law of the Land” as the Constitution, and acts of Congress and Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution.  Supreme Court opinions aren’t included!

Furthermore, Art. I, §1, US Constit., vests all law-making powers granted by the Constitution in Congress.  Our Constitution doesn’t grant any lawmaking powers to the Judicial Branch.

So why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is “the Law of the Land”?  Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are “law”, and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.

  1. Organic & statutory law and the totally different “common law” precedent followed in courts

Americans have been conditioned to ignore the huge distinctions between organic and statutory law, on the one hand; and the common law which is embodied in the precedents followed by judges in litigation.

Organic Law

Black’s Law Dictionary  defines “organic law” as

“The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten;[5] that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.”

The organic laws of the United States are

  • The Declaration of Independence – 1776
  • Articles of Confederation – 1777
  • Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government
  • Constitution of the United States – 1787

The Articles of Confederation was our first Constitution.  It was replaced by our Constitution of 1787 when it was ratified June 21, 1788.  The Northwest Ordinance was superseded by the transformation of the area covered by the Ordinance into States [pursuant to Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, US Constit.].

Do you see how absurd is the claim that the Supreme Court, a mere “creature” of the Constitution of 1787, has the power to change the Organic Law of the United States?

Statute Law

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “statute law” as the

“Body of written laws that have been adopted by the legislative body.”

As we saw above, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, §1). Acts of Congress qualify as part of the “supreme Law of the Land” only when they are made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution (Art.VI, cl. 2).  When Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, they are mere usurpations and must be treated as such.[6]

Common Law

The “common law” applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.[7] The Bible has much to say about our relations with each other:  don’t murder people, don’t maim them, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t tell lies about people, don’t be negligent, don’t cheat or defraud people, and such.  The Bible provides for Judges to decide disputes between people and empowers Judges to require the person who has violated these precepts to pay restitution to the person whom he harmed. So, e.g., the Biblical prohibitions against bearing false witness and slandering people became our modern day concepts of slander, libel, and defamation.  These principles were applied in the English courts from time immemorial, and are applied in American Courts.  Modern day American attorneys litigate these common law concepts all the time.  So if I am representing a client in an action for say, fraud, I look at the previous court opinions in the jurisdiction on fraud, and see how the courts in that jurisdiction have defined fraud – i.e., I look for “precedents” – the courts’ previous opinions on the subject – and I expect the Judge on my case to obey that precedent.[8]

THIS is the “common law”. It is “law” in the sense that it originated with God’s Word; and from “time immemorial” has been applied in the Courts of English speaking countries.  But this precedent is binding or persuasive only on courts.[9] As precedent for judges to follow, it is never “the law of the land”!

So, keep these three categories – organic, statutory, and common law – separate, and do not confuse court precedent with the “Law of the Land”.  The latter is restricted to the Organic Law, and statutes and treaties authorized by the Organic Law.

Now let’s look at the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts.

  1. What kinds of cases do federal courts have constitutional authority to hear?

The ten categories of cases the Judicial Branch has authority to hear are enumerated at Art. III, §2, cl. 1, US Constit.[10]

The first category is cases “arising under this Constitution”.  In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton shows these cases concern “provisions expressly contained” in the Constitution.  He then points to the restrictions on the authority of the State Legislatures [listed at Art. I, §10], and shows that if a State exercises any of those prohibited powers, and the federal government sues the State, the federal courts would have authority to hear the case (3rd & 13th paras).

So if a State enters into a Treaty, or grants Letters of Marque & Reprisal, or issues paper money, or does any of the other things prohibited by Art. I, §10, the controversy would “arise under the Constitution” and the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

Likewise, if a State passed a law which violated the Constitution – say one requiring candidates in their State for US Senate to be 40 years of age – instead of the 30 years prescribed at Art. I, §3, cl. 3 – the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

So the purpose of this category is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it!! [11]

Now let’s look at one way the Supreme Court butchered our Constitution in order to strike down State Laws they didn’t like.

  1. How the Supreme Court violated the “arising under” clause to hear cases they have no constitutional authority to hear

Let’s use “abortion” to illustrate the usurpation.  Obviously, “abortion” is not “expressly contained” in the Constitution.  So abortion doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution; and the constitutionality of State Statutes prohibiting abortion doesn’t fit into any of the other nine categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. Accordingly, federal courts have no judicial power over it. The Supreme Court had to butcher words in our Constitution in order to usurp power to legalize abortion. This is what they did:

The original intent of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to provide constitutional authority for the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866. That Act protected freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them God-given rights.[12]

Now look at §1 where it says, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

That’s the “due process” clause.  As Professor Berger points out [ibid.], it has a precise meaning which goes back to the Magna Charta:  it means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial.

But this is how the Supreme Court perverted the genuine meaning of that clause: In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty” in the due process clause and said, “liberty” means “privacy”, and “privacy” means “a woman can kill her unborn baby”.[13]

And they claimed they had jurisdiction to overturn State Laws criminalizing abortion because the issue arises under the Constitution at §1 of the 14th Amendment! [ibid.]

The Supreme Court redefined words in Our Constitution to justify the result they wanted in the case before them.

The Supreme Court didn’t “enforce” the Constitution – they butchered it to fabricate a “constitutional right” to kill unborn babies.

And the lawyers said, “It’s the Law of the Land”; the People yawned; and the clergy said, “the Bible says we have to obey civil government – besides, we don’t want to lose our 501 (c) (3) tax exemption!”

  1. What are the remedies when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution?

The opinions of which the convention lobby complains constitute violations of our Constitution.[14] The three remedies our Framers provided or advised for judicial violations of our Constitution are:

  1. In Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton shows Congress can impeach and remove from office federal judges who violate the Constitution. Congress is competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution!  Impeachment is their “check” on the Judicial Branch.
  2. In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows the Judicial Branch must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce its judgments. If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment and mindful of his Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, determines that an opinion of a federal court is unconstitutional; his Duty is to refuse to enforce it.  The President is also competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution!  Refusing to enforce their unconstitutional judgments is his “check” on the Judicial Branch.
  3. On the Right & Duty of the States – who created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution – to smack down their “creature” when their “creature” violates the Constitutional Compact the States made with each other, see Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] “Creature” is the word our Founders used – e.g., Federalist No. 33 (5th para) & Jefferson’s draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution).

[2] Art. VII, cl. 1, US Constit., sets forth ratification procedures for our Constitution.

[3] Madison’s Virginia Report of 1799-1800 (pp 190-196).

[4] Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on July 23, 1787, the Delegates discussed who was competent to ratify the proposed new Constitution.  Col. Mason said it is “the basis of free Government” that only the people are competent to ratify the new Constitution, and

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it.  They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…”

Madison agreed that State Legislatures were incompetent to ratify the proposed Constitution – it would make essential inroads on the existing State Constitutions, and

“…it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence….”

It’s equally novel & dangerous to say that the Supreme Court may change the Constitution under which it holds its existence.

[5] It is said England doesn’t have a written constitution.

[6] Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the enumerated powers are void. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have supremacy over nothing.  Federalist No. 27 (last para) says:

“…the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [capitals are Hamilton’s]

See also Federalist No. 33 (last 2 paras) and Federalist No. 78 (10th para).

[7] John Whitehead mentions the Biblical origin of the common law in The Second American Revolution.

[8] Art. III, §2, cl.1 delegates to federal courts power to hear “Controversies between Citizens of different States.”  Much of the litigation conducted in federal courts falls into this category.  These lawsuits aren’t about the Constitution.  Instead, they involve the range of issues people fight about in State Courts: personal injury, breach of contract, business disputes, fighting over property, slander & libel, etc.  In deciding these cases, federal judges are expected to follow the “common law” precedents.

[9] In Federalist No. 78 (next to last para), Hamilton discusses how judges are bound by “precedents” which define and point out their duty in the particular cases which come before them.

[10] In Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton says:

“…the…authority of the federal …[courts]…is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified.  The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” 

[11] James Madison agreed that the purpose of the “arising under this Constitution” clause is to enable federal courts to enforce the Constitution.  At the Virginia Ratifying convention on June 20, 1788, he explained the categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. As to “cases arising under this Constitution”, he said:

“…That causes of a federal nature will arise, will be obvious to every gentleman, who will recollect that the states are laid under restrictions; and that the rights of the union are secured by these restrictions. They may involve equitable as well as legal controversies…”

[12] This is proved in Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[13] In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court said under Part VIII of their opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

[14] Many Supreme Court opinions violate our Constitution.  Wickard v. Filburn (1942), discussed HERE, is another of the most notorious.  But we elect to Congress people who don’t know our Constitution or The Federalist Papers; and they are unaware of their Duty – imposed by their Oath of office – to function as a “check” on the Judicial Branch by impeaching federal judges who violate our Constitution.



What The Framers Really Said About The Purpose Of Amendments To Our Constitution

One of the silliest of the many unsupported claims made by those lobbying for an Article V convention is that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.[1]

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that their claim makes as much sense as saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.[2]

And since none of our Framers said such a silly thing, the convention lobby can’t produce a quote where it was said.

Even so, some have believed it and repeated it to others.  Americans!  We must demand that people prove their claims before we believe what they tell us.

I will show you original source documents, and you can see for yourself what our Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution.

Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted.  He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.

Madison’s Journal shows what our Framers said at the convention about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution:

• Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787: the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.”
• George Mason said on June 11, 1787: The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective,” as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [i.e., a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine] [3]
• Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787: amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.[4]

The Federalist Papers

In Federalist No. 43 at 8, Madison said the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to repair “discovered faults” and “amendment of errors”; and “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience.

In Federalist No. 85 (13th para), Hamilton said useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not…the mass of its powers”[5]

Throughout Federalist No. 49, Madison warned against a convention for proposing amendments, and showed that a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches.

Madison’s letter of August 28, 1830 to Edward Everett (p. 383-403)

Madison says:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S…” (p. 398)

So he is talking about provisions – defects – in the Constitution which permit the federal government to abuse the States.  He goes on to say:

“…the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn…”[6]

So he’s saying that when a defect in the Constitution exposes the States to abuses by the federal government, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.

To fully grasp Madison’s point, we must look at his letter in its historical context of the Tariff Act of 1828:  The southern states bought manufactured goods from England.  England bought southern cotton.  But infant industries in the Northeast couldn’t compete with the English imports. So during 1828, Congress passed a Tariff Act which imposed such high tariffs on English imports that the southern states could no longer buy them.  England stopped buying southern cotton. This devastated the southern economy. So South Carolina wanted to nullify the Tariff Act (the “Tariff of Abominations”); and developed a theory that a State had a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law, and the nullification would be presumed valid, unless three-fourths of the States said it wasn’t valid.

Madison opposed South Carolina’s theory because the Tariff Act was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution.  States can’t nullify a constitutional law![7]

But while the Tariff Act was constitutional, it was abusive:  Article I, §8, cl. 1 was being used to benefit infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the southern states.[8]

So what’s the remedy “within the purview of the Constitution” for the Tariff Act of 1828?  Madison doesn’t spell it out – but obviously Art. I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections.[9]

Washington’s Farewell Address

In his Address, Washington warns that we must require people in the federal government to confine themselves within their constitutional powers; and we must not permit one department [branch] of the federal government to encroach on the powers of the other departments (p. 15-19).  He then says,

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (p.19)

So Washington is talking about what the people may come to see as defects in the Constitution:

  • If we want one branch of the federal government to have a power which the Constitution delegates to another branch, we should amend the Constitution to redistribute that power.[10]
  • If we want the federal government to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power. No matter how desirable it is for the federal government to have the additional power, we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation.[11]

And this is what Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison assisted Washington in drafting his Farewell Address,[12] had previously said in Federalist No. 78:  The representatives of the people [Congress] may not violate the Constitution even if a majority of their constituents want them to:

“…Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act…”  (5th para from the end)

Our Constitution isn’t defective, it’s ignored!

Our Constitution is a 5,000 year miracle.  Our problem is everyone ignores it. The solution is to dust it off, read it, learn it, and enforce it.  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Demand Proof of what people say before you believe them.

If Americans would follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and demand proof of the claims the convention lobby makes, they would spot the false claims and preserve our blessed Constitution.  Judges & Juries require trial lawyers to prove their claims. Demand the same from lobbyists for a convention!

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

1 Michael Farris claimed [but couldn’t link to a quote because Mason didn’t say it]:

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”

2 Amendments can’t “rein in” the fed. gov’t when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. Hello?

3 Mason’s concern was that the new fed. gov’t wouldn’t agree to amendments needed to correct defects in the new Constitution:

  • Under the Articles of Confederation (our 1st Constitution), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the States (see ART. 13). So Art. V of the new Constitution dispensed with the requirement that Congress approve amendments.
  • Who should be able to propose amendments? Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States.  But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without asking Congress because Congress might become oppressive and not permit the States to get the necessary amendments.

So the convention method was added. And it provided a way for States to propose amendments.  But it also provided a convenient opportunity to get a new Constitution, since the delegates would have that transcendent right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and write a new constitution which creates a new government.

George Mason hated the new Constitution.  He said on Aug. 31, 1787 that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another convention. Everybody knew that to get a new Constitution, you need a convention.

Madison and the other Framers went along with adding the convention method because they knew the people had the right to meet in convention and draft a new Constitution whether or not the convention method was added to Art. V [e.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville  p. 299 at 2.]; and they couldn’t stop People in the future from doing what they had just done.  So Madison, Hamilton & John Jay promptly started warning of the dangers of another convention: see the Brilliant Men handout.

4 Here’s an illustration of what States soon saw as a defect in our Constitution:  Art. III, §2, cl. 1 delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State”. But when a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from federal courts the power to hear such cases.

5 The Constitution drafted at the federal convention of 1787 delegates only a tiny handful of powers to the fed. gov’t.  See this chart.

6 Madison continues, “… according to a process applicable by the States.”  Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should ask their congressional delegation to propose them.  E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (p. 299 at 2.).

7 See Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1835) HERE  (p. 573-607).

8 The Tariff Act of 1828 violated our Founding Principle (2nd para of the Declaration of Independence) that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business.

9 In the very next paragraph, Madison says that when there is a pattern of usurpations and abuses, we must step outside of the Constitution and resort to the original right of self-defense: resistance, i.e., nullification or revolution (p. 398).

10 E.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 11 delegates to Congress the power to declare war.  But if we want the President to have that power, we should amend the Constitution to delegate that power to the President.  We must not permit the President to exercise that power by usurpation!

11 If we wanted the fed. gov’t to exercise power over labor unions, wages & hours, safety standards, food & drugs, manufacturing standards, agriculture, energy, housing, transportation, education, medical care, the environment, etc., etc., etc., we should have amended the Constitution to delegate those powers to the fed. gov’t.  But we ignored Washington’s advice, and permitted the fed. gov’t to exercise those powers by usurpation.

12 The Introduction to the Farewell Address (p. 3) says that George Washington composed it with the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.



States Determine Qualifications For Voting And Procedures For Registration, And Only Citizens May Vote

1. Summary

The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting.  And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.

Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens.[1] But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship.  I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.

A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote.[2]

The federal government is unlawfully mandating that illegal aliens be allowed to vote in our elections.

2. The Concept of “Citizenship”

Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a Godsend to our Framing Generation because it provided the new concepts our Framers needed to transform us from subjects of a Monarchy to Citizens of a Republic.[3]  Book I, Ch. XIX, defines “citizens”, “inhabitants” and “naturalization”:

  • “Citizens” are the members of the civil society who are bound to it by certain duties, subject to its authority, participate in its advantages and in the rights of citizens [§212].
  • “Inhabitants” are foreigners who are permitted to settle in the country and are subject to its laws, but do not participate in all the rights of citizens [§213].
  • “Naturalization” is the process whereby the country grants to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society [§214].

So “citizens” have civic advantages and political rights which are not extended to “inhabitants” – and certainly not to aliens who have unlawfully entered a country.[4]

Accordingly, our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments[5] refer to voting by “Citizens”.

3. The Federalist Papers show that voting is a privilege of Citizens alone

The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”.  They weren’t allowed to vote.  Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:

“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States].  In some of the States the difference is very material.  In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added] [6]

In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants.  In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.

Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:

“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom) [boldface added]

“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) *** “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…”  (No. 57, 7th para from bottom) [boldface added]

“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.) [boldface added]

“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …”  No. 68 (3rd para) [boldface added]

4. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows our Founding Generation saw voting as restricted to citizens

Suffrage is:

“1. A vote; a voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office or trust. Nothing can be more grateful to a good man than to be elevated to office by the unbiased suffrages of free enlightened citizens.”

Citizen is:

“5. In the United States, a person, native[7] or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise…”

Franchise is:

“1.  … the right to vote for governor, senators and representatives, is a franchise belonging to citizens, and not enjoyed by aliens…”

Inhabitants and aliens may not vote unless they become naturalized citizens and meet whatever additional qualifications for voting are set forth in the State Constitution. Naturalization is:

“The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress,[8] vesting certain tribunals with the power.”

5. State Constitutions set forth the Qualifications for Voting

When we operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first federal Constitution),[9] the States determined the qualifications for voting in state and local elections and in elections to the Continental Congress.  These qualifications were set forth in the State Constitutions, and varied from State to State.

In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.

Our Framers specifically rejected the idea that the new Congress or the State Legislatures would determine who was eligible to vote.  Instead, only The People of each State were competent to define the right of suffrage for their State, and their definition was enshrined in their State Constitution.  In Federalist No. 52 (2nd para), James Madison tells us:

“…The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.[10] It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper … To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper … To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention … must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself.  It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments…”[boldface added]

Remember!  Since the federal and state governments are merely “creatures” of constitutions, they have no power to determine who may vote. That power belongs to the “creators” of the governments.  Only The People are competent to set the qualifications for voting; and our determinations are enshrined in our State Constitutions.

6. The States reserved power to determine procedures for voter registration

Our Constitution of 1787 created a federal government to which we delegated only “few and defined” powers [see chart].  Nowhere in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government power to dictate procedures States must use in registering voters.  Accordingly, it is a “reserved” power.[11] Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration.  Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent [at II. A. 2]:

“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.

Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.”

7. The federal government has usurped the States’ powers to determine who may vote and determine procedures for voter registration

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form!  The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.

But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.  Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Scalia asserted:

“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” [12]

Scalia said,

“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”

and concluded,

“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”

So what should we do when federal courts issue unconstitutional opinions?

8. Our Framers said nullification is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression

The federal government has refused to control our borders and, as a result, we are being invaded.  The federal government is demanding that invaders be allowed to vote in our elections.  We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.  What does your State Constitution say about qualifications for voting?  Demand that your State government enforce your State Constitution.

And Remember! As Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), federal courts can only issue judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them.  So the President’s “check” on usurping federal judges is to refuse to enforce their opinions.  States must man up and obey the Constitution instead of unconstitutional dictates of the federal Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think that President Trump will send out US Marshalls or the National Guard to FORCE States to allow illegal aliens to vote?  The iron is hot – the time to strike is now.

Endnotes:

1 Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. says (2nd para):

“…Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship…” [boldface added]

2 The California legislature thus violated Article II, Section 2, California Constitution which says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

3 That Vattel had such influence is proved HERE.

4 All men everywhere possess the rights God gave them. But in a civil society, the members possess political or civic rights which are not extended to inhabitants, lawful visitors, or illegal alien invaders.

5 With these four Amendments, the States agreed they would not deny suffrage to Citizens on account of race, being a female, not paying the tax, or being between 18 to 21 years of age.  States retain power to deny suffrage to any Citizen on account of other factors (e.g., illiteracy, being on welfare, or stupidity).  

6 Freed slaves were naturalized by §1 of the 14th Amendment.

7 Vattel §212:  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [See §§ 215-217 for other places babies may be born as natural-born citizens.]

8 Art. I, §8, cl. 4, US Const.

9 The Articles of Confederation were ratified July 9, 1778.

10 A “republic” is a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.

11 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) [italics added]

12 Counsel for the State of Arizona made a strategic error in failing to challenge the constitutionality of the NVRA as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress and as in violation of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1, US Const.



Honest Discourse About Article V Convention Needed

Whether States should ask Congress to call a convention under Article V of our federal Constitution is one of the most important issues of our time.  The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of The People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and set up a new Constitution – with a new and easier mode of ratification – which creates a new government.[1]1

Americans need the Truth.  But former law professor Rob Natelson’s recent article in The Hill is filled with ad hominems and misstatements. Natelson is legal advisor for pro-convention groups such as “Convention of States Project” (COSP).

“Poisoning the well” fallacy

Natelson characterizes those who oppose an Article V convention as “big government advocates”; “Washington insiders” who protect “judges and politicians who abuse their positions”; chanters of “talking points” from the “disinformation campaign” of the 1960s and early 1970s who have “no real expertise on the subject”; and, like those involved in “voter suppression efforts”, use “fear and disinformation” to discourage citizens from exercising their rights.

And while such tactics clearly resonate with COSP’s cheerleading squad; [2]2 others immediately recognize the preemptive ad hominem attack known as the “poisoning the well” fallacy.  That fallacy is committed when one primes the audience with adverse information or false allegations about the opponent, in an attempt to bolster his own claim or discount the credibility of the opponent.

Obviously, Natelson’s characterizations don’t constitute proof that he is right, and opponents are wrong.

Misrepresentations, omissions, and irrelevant “academic research”

1- Natelson asserts

“Our founders designed this [Article V convention] as a way the people could fix the federal government if it became abusive or dysfunctional”.

But he presents no proof – and can’t because no one at the federal convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) said such a thing.  As proved in The George Mason Fabrication, the Delegates agreed that the purpose of amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.

2- Natelson asserts:

“Any proposals must… be ratified by 38 states before they become law.”

That’s not true.  While any amendments to our Constitution must be ratified by 38 States; our Declaration of Independence says it’s the “self-evident” Right of a People to abolish their government and set up a new one.

We invoked that Right in 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy.

In 1787, we invoked that Right to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation; and set up a new Constitution – the one we now have – which created a new government.

How did we get from our first Constitution to our second Constitution?  There was a convention to propose amendments to 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”.

But the Delegates ignored this limitation – they ignored the instructions from their States  – and they wrote our second Constitution.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the “precious right” of a People to throw off one government and set up a new one, as justification for what they did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.

We can’t stop that from happening at another convention.  Furthermore, any new constitution will have its own mode of ratification.  Whereas Art. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; the new Constitution provided at Article VII that it would be ratified by 9 States.

Any proposed third constitution will have its own mode of ratification.  The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1).  The States don’t ratify it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

3- Natelson asserts that “academic research” shows:

“…how the convention is chosen and operates: It is a meeting of state representatives of a kind very common in U.S. history…The convention follows a pre-set agenda and attendees are subject to state legislative direction.”

But Natelson doesn’t mention the federal “amendments” convention of 1787.  That convention involved Delegates who ignored the instructions from their States[3] 3 and from the Continental Congress, and resulted in a new Constitution with a new and easier mode of ratification.  That is the “meeting” which is relevant to the convention Congress has the power to call under Article V of our Constitution. 

The “calling” of a convention by Congress is governed – not by Natelson’s “meetings” – but by provisions in our Constitution.  Article V delegates to Congress the power to “call” a convention; and Article I, § 8, last clause, delegates to Congress the power to make laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.

As to the sovereign powers of Delegates, look to the Declaration of Independence, the federal “amendments” convention of 1787, and Federalist No. 40 – not to Natelson’s “meetings”.

4- In an earlier article, Georgetown law professor David Super cited Coleman v. Miller (1939) to show that as amending the Constitution is a “political question”; the courts are unlikely to intervene.[4]

Natelson responded that Coleman is a 79-year old “minority opinion the courts have long repudiated”;   but doesn’t show where the Supreme Court “repudiated” its opinion.

What Coleman shows is this: we can’t expect federal courts to make Delegates obey instructions.  No one has power over Delegates – Delegates can take down one government and set up a new one.

Conclusion

Here’s an idea:  Let’s all read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution; elect only people who have also read them, know what they say, and agree to obey; and then let’s downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

1 This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four Supreme Court Justices, and other luminaries warned against an Article V convention.
2 At 5:25-7:35 mark.  Archived HERE.
3 The States’ instructions are HERE at endnote 9.
4 When a power is delegated to a “political” branch [legislative or executive], federal courts [“judicial” branch] traditionally abstain from interfering and substituting their judgment for that of the branch to which the power was delegated.



The “Compact” Gimmick To Circumvent The Powers Granted To Congress By Article V

The supremacy clause at Article VI, clause 2, US Constitution, says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Two bills, SJR 31 & HJR 49, which purport to provide for the selection and control of “commissioners” to an “interstate convention” for “proposing amendments” to our federal Constitution, have recently been filed in the Virginia General Assembly.  The bills assert that such an “interstate convention” is authorized by Article I, §10, clause 3; the 10th Amendment; and Article V of our Constitution.

As shown below, the bills are unconstitutional because they seek to circumvent Article V, and are not encompassed within Article I, §10, clause 3, or the 10th Amendment.  Under the supremacy clause, they would be struck down.

  1. What Article V says about amending our Constitution

Article V says:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…”

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method:  Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection.

We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous!  If Congress calls an Article V convention, our existing Constitution could be replaced with a new Constitution which sets up a completely new structure of government.[1]

Nevertheless, the People granted to Congress at Article V the power to “call” a convention; and to the Delegates to the convention, the power to “propose amendments”.[2]

Yet the Convention of States Project (COS), in brazen disregard of the plain meaning of Article V, has long insisted that the States “call” the convention; the States propose the amendments for the convention to rubberstamp; and the States will have total control over the Delegates to the convention.

SJR 31 & HJR 49 are an implicit admission that we who oppose an Article V convention have proved our point:  Congress really does “call” the Convention; and pursuant to its grant of power to “call” the convention, Congress really is granted by Article I, §8, last clause, the power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the powers granted to Congress by Article V; and the States actually have no power over an Article V convention – except to ask Congress to “call” one.[3]

The Congressional Research Service Report dated April 11, 2014 likewise reflects Congress’ clear awareness that it alone has the power to organize and set up an Article V convention. The Report says:

“First, Article V delegates important and exclusive authority over the amendment process to Congress…” [page 4]

“Second . . . Congress has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including . . . (4) determining the number and selection process for its delegates;[4] (5) setting internal convention procedures, including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; . . .” [page 4] [italics added]

And contrary to COS’s previous assurances that the States would have total control over an Article V convention, the CRS Report says on page 27:

“In the final analysis, the question what sort of convention?” is not likely to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembles.”

In other words, we’ll have to get a convention before we know what the Delegates are going to do!

1. The new Gimmick to circumvent Congress’ powers under Article V

SJR 31 & HJR 49 make the bizarre claim that Article I, §10, clause 3, which says:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”,

is really talking about an “interstate convention” for the States to meet and “propose amendments” to our Constitution!

First of all, our federal Constitution doesn’t address “interstate conventions”![5] State and local governments and private organizations may hold nationwide conventions (gatherings) on an endless list of matters: trade shows, book fairs, sports events, high school marching band contests, agricultural fairs, meetings of County Sheriffs, whatever they like!  And they don’t need permission from Congress.

Secondly, a “Compact with another State” within the meaning of Article I, §10, clause 3, is separate, distinct, and totally unrelated to the Article V convention called by Congress for the purpose of addressing our federal Constitution.  “Compact”, as used in Article I, §10, clause 3, means binding agreements or contracts between States which deal with state matters.  Traditionally, “compacts” have been used to resolve such matters as boundary disputes between States; and may be used to address various other issues between States.[6]

Article V governs amendments to our Constitution – not Article I, §10, clause 3!  Virginia may not lawfully set up any gimmick to circumvent the powers granted by Article V to Congress.  And Congress may not lawfully approve a “compact” which violates our Constitution!

Thirdly, SJR 31 & HJR 49 claim the 10th Amendment gives States the power to hold an “interstate convention” to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Rubbish!  The 10th Amendment addresses powers “reserved to the States…or to the people.”  It is inapplicable here because no powers respecting an Article V convention were reserved to the States: The People granted to Congress the power to “call” an Article V convention; and to the Delegates, the power to “propose amendments”.  The only power the States have is to ask Congress to call the convention.

Once the requisite number of States has applied to Congress, it’s out of the States’ hands.  Pursuant to Article I, § 8, last clause;[7] Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its power to “call” the convention.  And then, our Fate is in the hands of the Delegates; and they can do whatever they want – as they did in 1787.

III. The new Gimmick attempts to circumvent the Plenipotentiary Powers of the Delegates to an Article V Convention.

Article V shows on its face that the convention is the deliberative body.  The Delegates hold the Power to “propose amendments”; or, to do what our Framers did at the federal “amendments” convention of 1787 (invoke the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence) and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.

So, while the States are free to propose amendments to their Congressional Delegations [and this is what James Madison advised];[8] the States have no authority to dictate the amendments to be proposed at the convention called by Congress.

And as shown in “Why states can’t prevent a runaway convention” and “Delegates to an Article V Convention can’t be controlled by state laws!” attempts to control Delegates with “unfaithful delegate” laws are laughably ineffective.

Apparently, the convention lobby  now concedes that “unfaithful delegate” bills won’t work, since with SJR 31 & HJR 49, they attempt to circumvent the plenipotentiary powers held by Delegates to an Article V convention, by fabricating a new kind of convention (meeting) out of  Article I, § 10, clause 3!

1. The solution is to enforce the Constitution we already have

Americans don‘t know what our Constitution says and don’t care what it says. They want what they want; and elect politicians like themselves. The politicians made a mess. To fix the mess, Americans must read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and enforce them with their votes and by repudiating unconstitutional federal programs.  State and local governments must enforce our Constitution by renouncing federal funds to implement unconstitutional programs and by nullification.  See also James Madison’s specific suggestions on how States & Citizens can resist federal usurpations.

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] This is why Brilliant Men (Madison, Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other eminent jurists and scholars) have warned against another convention.  And this flyer sets forth the Facts of the federal “amendments convention” of 1787 at which our existing Constitution was drafted to replace our first Constitution (the Articles of Confederation).

[2] The issue in U.S. v. Sprague  (1931) was whether the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) should have been ratified by conventions in each State instead of by State Legislatures. The Supreme Court held that Article V “is a grant of authority by the people to Congress” and that the people “deliberately made the grant of power to Congress in respect to the choice of the mode of ratification of amendments.” Accordingly, Congress had authority to select ratification of the proposed 18th Amendment by State Legislatures instead of by conventions in each State.

[3] THIS handy chart lists who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.

[4] Congress is under no obligation to permit States to participate in the Convention.  Congress has the power to appoint its own members, federal judges, or whomever else they want as Delegates!

[5] “Convention” has several meanings. It can be a meeting or gathering, such as a national convention of County Court Clerks or architects; or it can refer to a treaty with foreign countries, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the laws of war.  The author of SJR 31 & HJR 49 may have fallen victim to the Fallacy of Ambiguity since he slips and slides between the two meanings.  “Compact” in Art. I, §10, cl. 3, means “agreement” or “contract” – not meetings!

[6] E.g., States could properly enter into “Compacts”, within the meaning of Art. I, §10, cl. 3, wherein they agree to prohibit waste being discharged into a River shared by them; or respecting the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the River.  Even though the federal government has no delegated authority to deal directly with such issues; the requirement of Consent by Congress to such Compacts is proper because States situated above or below the proposed dam could be affected by the dam.

Neither the Federalist Papers nor Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 set forth what our Framers meant by “compacts” at Art. I, §10, cl.3.  Here are two secondary sources: The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts: A practitioner’s guide, by Caroline N. Broun & Michael L. Buenger (see pages 1-9 for the historical basis of “interstate compacts”).  See also Justice Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), Book 3, Ch. 35, §§ 1395-1403.

[7] Former law professor and pro-convention operative Rob Natelson’s statements to the contrary are untrue.  See “Rob Natelson perverts the Necessary and Proper Clause and thinks in circles”.

[8] E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (pages 297-301) at the end of Madison’s point 2 [and then read Madison’s point 3!]



Convention of States Project’s “Simulated Convention” A Dog And Pony Show

Foundational Knowledge

Our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government.  But 100 years ago, we started electing Progressives (Fabian socialists) to State and federal office.  With the enthusiastic approval of the American People, the Progressives set up the socialist regulatory welfare governments (state and federal) we now have.  It’s unconstitutional; but Americans didn’t care because they were being taken care of by the governments, and their children were getting “free” public school educations.

So for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.

Now that our socialist system is collapsing, along comes the “Convention of States” Project (COS), blames all our problems on the federal government, and claims we can fix the federal government’s violations of our Constitution by amending the Constitution.[1]

And they say amendments which will “rein in the abuse of power by the federal government” when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”,[2] can be obtained only at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

Article V provides that if two thirds of the States apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.[3] 3 However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.  This has happened before!

Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation.  It had defects, so on February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  But instead of proposing amendments, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution, with an easier mode of ratification, [4] which created a new government.  In Federalist   No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to abolish our form of government, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.

So!  Ever since the federal convention of 1787, it has been known that any convention called to address our Constitution under Article V provides the opportunity to impose a new Constitution. [5] That’s why the enemies of our Constitution periodically push for an Article V convention.[6]

In response to the current push, constitutionalists are warning Americans that if Congress calls an Article V convention, a new constitution with a new mode of ratification is likely to be imposed – probably a new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

COS’s “simulated” Article V convention

So during September 2016, COS held an “invitation only” “simulated convention” in Williamsburg, Virginia  attended by State Legislators handpicked by COS,[7] to show us that Delegates to a real Article V convention called by Congress will do nothing more than propose amendments.

And lo!  At the “simulated convention”, all the handpicked invitees did was propose six amendments to our Constitution – they didn’t “run away” and propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification!

COS would like us to believe that their “simulated convention” proves that a real Article V convention called by Congress also won’t run away when, in fact, it proves nothing except that handpicked COS invitees fall in line with the COS agenda.

Now let’s look at the proposed amendments:  COS posted them HERE; an archived copy is HERE.

COS’s six amendments

Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s “1984”, the amendments would do the opposite of what COS claims.

“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

So!  Congress can’t increase the debt unless they decide to increase the debt.  Wow. This is “fiscal restraints”?

If you read through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money.

The reason we have a huge debt is because for 100 years, Congress has been spending on objects which aren’t on the list of delegated powers.  The States go along with it because they get federal funds for implementing unconstitutional federal programs in their States.  31.9% of the States’ annual revenues is from federal funds.  All this federal money is borrowed and added to the public debt!

To say that State Legislators display hypocrisy when they decry “out of control federal spending” when they have their hand out for all the federal money they can get, is an understatement. The amendment authorizes such spending to continue for as long as Congress continues to approve increases in the debt!  The amendment legalizes – makes constitutional – all such spending and debt increases!

Section 2 gives us nothing.  Our existing Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to require States or local governments to spend money.

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.  [boldface added]

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article.  Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

Section 1: The original intent of the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §3) is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying & selling; and to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports & exports, both inland & abroad.[8]

With Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the federal government began to pervert the original intent so as to exert power over whatever they wanted to regulate.

The amendment legalizes the perversions!  It delegates to the federal government powers it has already usurped to regulate the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods and articles.

Furthermore: the amendment delegates to the federal government a sweeping new power over the movement or transportation of persons across state lines!  It would, e.g., authorize the federal government to prohibit use of privately owned vehicles to cross state lines, and to require prior written permission to cross state lines.  I saw in communist East Europe & the Soviet Union a system where governments control movement of persons.  Will “Papers, please” be heard at checkpoints in America?  This malignant amendment would be constitutional authority to impose such a system here.[9]

Section 2: The federal government has no existing constitutional authority to regulate intra state commerce, so the first clause of this section adds nothing our Constitution doesn’t already prohibit.

But the second clause delegates to the federal government another significant new power over persons: it comes verbatim from Randy Barnett’s so-called “bill of federalism”:[10]

 “…Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.”

Why does Barnett, who attended the “simulated convention” as “Committee Advisor”, want the federal government to have this new power?  What’s an “act of war against the United States” – doing what the Bundys and their supporters did?  The amendment delegates to Congress the power to define “acts of war against the United States” – and to re-define it from time to time – to encompass whatever they want!

We need to understand the implications of delegating such power to Congress.  As with “treason” under the Tudors in England, anyone can be accused of “acts of war against the United States”.  Does Randy Barnett, law professor, understand the implications?  James Madison understood them and thus said that “treason” must be defined in the Constitution; [11] obviously, no one of Madison’s caliber was at the “simulated convention”.

Section 3:  Our Framers didn’t advise the States to file lawsuits against the federal government when it violates the Constitution!  Our Framers told the States to nullify such violations.[12]

 “Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.”

This amendment is a feel-good palliative which caters to Americans’ pervasive desire for a quick “fix” which permits them to avoid dealing with the real causes of their problems.  See Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure.

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. [boldface added]

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

Section 1: Article I, §1, US Constitution, provides that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in Congress.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution].

Accordingly, executive orders and federal agency rules and orders are not “law”.

The amendment would supersede Art. I, §1.  It would elevate to the status of “federal law” every order or regulation burped out by bureaucrats in the executive branch; every executive order signed by every President; and every order barked out by jack-booted thugs working for federal agencies.  And unless three fifths of States agree that you don’t have to obey – you must obey or bear the consequences of violating what would be – thanks to this amendment – “federal law”.

Section 2: James Madison, Father of our Constitution, showed how individual States or several States could carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments.  But the amendment would require 30 States to agree before any one State or person could defend itself!

“Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.”

This amendment doesn’t impose “fiscal restraints” – it authorizes Congress to impose new and different taxes on us! 

The words in boldface authorize Congress to impose “any tax” if three fifths of both Houses agree.  “Any tax” includes a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).  Statists love the VAT because it raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments”.  This is what will replace the income, gift, and estate tax.

“Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3”:

“Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”

As shown in The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster, rulemaking by federal agencies is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1 of our Constitution.

The proposed amendment would supersede Art. I, §1 and legalize such rulemaking!  And the existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The solution to the burden created by unconstitutional federal agencies is to do away with the agencies!  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers!

Conclusion

The “simulated convention” was a dog and pony show put on to produce amendments to con us into believing that a real Article V convention called by Congress won’t “run away”.

But it’s impossible to fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with amendments, because amendments can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t delegate in the first place.  Thus, the amendments the hand-picked attendees approved legalize powers already usurped or delegate sweeping new powers to the federal government over States and individual persons!

Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. The “simulated convention” shows we live in a time of constitutional illiteracy where people of good intent can be misled by persons of “insidious views”.   Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”

Endnotes:

[1] If your spouse commits adultery, will your marriage be saved if you amend the vows to permit adultery?  When People violate the Ten Commandments, will morality be restored if we amend the Ten Commandments to permit sin?

[2] Michael Farris’ words in “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V” or HERE.

[3] None of the Delegates to the convention of 1787 said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the fed. gov’t when it usurps power. They said the purpose is to fix defects in the Constitution.  See The George Mason Fabrication at subheading 4.

[4] Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation  (AOC) required Amendments to the AOC to be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.  But Article VII of the new Constitution (the one we now have) provided that it would be ratified by 9 States.

[5] The enemies of our Constitution knew from day one that they could get rid of our Constitution at an Art. V convention!  Our present Constitution was ratified by the 9th State on June 21, 1788.  In Federalist No. 85 (mid-August 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of the anti-federalists who were agitating for another convention in order to get rid of our new Constitution.

On Oct. 27, 1788, anti-federalist Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia Assembly a Resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention.  In Madison’s letter to Randolph of Nov 2, 1788 (pages 294-297), he speaks of Henry’s “enmity” “agst [against] the whole system” [the new Constitution]; and “the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit.”

[6] New Constitutions are already prepared or being drafted:  e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1).  Globalists [e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations] who want to move us into the North American Union (NAU) need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state in the NAU.

[7] COS’s page is archived HERE. See “who attended the simulation” in right column. [Archived list of attendees is HERE or HERE.]

[8] Proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause & how it was abused is HERE.

[9] Yet, Legislators from 44 of the States at the “simulated convention” approved this!

[10] See Barnett’s Amendment 2 – Limits of Commerce Power”.  It’s archived HERE.

[11]“Treason” is defined at Art. III, §3.  In Federalist No. 43 (at 3.) Madison warns that the definition must be locked into the Constitution.  Otherwise, malignant people fabricate definitions as needed in order to condemn their enemies.

Compare Art. I, §8, cl. 10 which delegates to Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”.  In Federalist No. 42 (1st & 4th paras), Madison points out that this class of powers is among those which “regulate the intercourse with foreign nations” and so must be handled by the general [fed.] gov’t.  And since everyone’s definition of the terms is different, the fed gov’t should define them.  This class of powers wouldn’t affect private Citizens.  For more on the limited criminal jurisdiction of the fed gov’t over private Citizens, see What Criminal Laws are Congress Authorized To Make?

[12] See Nullification made Easy.  And remember: State officials are required by the Oath at Art. VI to “support” the federal Constitution – not to obey the federal government!

© 2018 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com



The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment And Daniel Webster

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.” Daniel Webster, 4th of July Oration, 1802.

We live in a time of constitutional illiteracy.  A recent survey found that only 26% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Yet every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows all about how to amend a document he never bothered to read.  Our lawyers were indoctrinated in law school with the Supreme Court’s perversions of our Constitution, and know nothing of our actual Constitution. We should read and learn the Constitution we have before we tinker with it or jump on the bandwagon of tinkerers.  Otherwise, we destroy the “fair and lovely fabric” we were given.

Summary

Under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President enforces them. The powers of “making” and “enforcing” are separated so that the President and Congress may act as a “check” on each other.

But 100 years ago, Congress starting passing laws they had no constitutional authority to make, and delegated the details to be written in by agencies within the Executive Branch. This process continued and resulted in the Code of Federal Regulations which contains the huge body of regulations made by agencies within the Executive Branch. And thus we got the unconstitutional administrative law state under which every aspect of our lives is being increasingly regulated and controlled. [1]1

And now appear those who, under the promise of limiting the regulatory administrative law state, propose an Amendment to our Constitution which would legalize it!

  1. Only the Legislative Branch has Constitutional Authority to make Laws

Article I of our Constitution created the Legislative Branch of the federal government.  Section 1 thereunder says:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

That means what it says.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution]; and laws may be made only by elected Senators and Representatives in Congress.

  1. The Executive Branch Enforces the Laws Congress makes

Article II of our Constitution created the Executive Branch. A primary function of that branch is to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch.  Since the President’s Oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, he is obligated to refuse to enforce any Act of Congress which is unconstitutional.

  1. Rulemaking by Agencies in the Executive Branch

But during the early 1900s, Congress began to make laws outside the scope of the handful of powers granted to the federal government, and delegated the details to be written by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

This is now routine practice: Congress passes an overall statutory framework, and bureaucrats in the Executive Agencies write the rules to flesh it out. The Agencies themselves are often unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted in the Constitution. [2]

To illustrate:  Congress passed – without reading – the over 2,000-page Obamacare act. Then it went to the Department of Health & Human Services (an unconstitutional federal agency) to have tens of thousands of additional pages of regulations added to fill out the framework.

This unconstitutional practice resulted in the infamous Code of Federal Regulations. The Code is so huge it’s difficult to impossible to keep up with the rules and revisions which pretend to regulate one’s trade, business, or profession.

The administrative law state and agency rules are unconstitutional!  They violate Art. I, § 1, US Constitution, and are outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government.

So, what’s the solution?

  1. The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment

Roman Buhler of the “The Madison Coalition” says we should support the “Regulation Freedom” Amendment to the US Constitution:

“Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation.”

Do you see the trap the amendment sets?  It would legalize rulemaking by federal agencies in the Executive Branch and would thus supersede Article I, §1 of our Constitution!  And the entire existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional! [3]

The amendment would thus bring about a fundamental transformation of our Constitution from one where Laws are made by elected Representatives on only a handful of enumerated powers; to the administrative law state where laws are made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations).  The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they please—and they would stand unless Congress, which often doesn’t even read the laws they pass, overrules it.

It protects 2nd Amendment Rights? 

In an email dated November 10, 2017, Mr. Buhler said his proposed amendment “protects 2nd Amendment Rights”.

But his amendment does the opposite – it legalizes all the existing federal regulations which restrict firearms and ammunition. Look at Title 27, Chapter II, Subchapter B, Parts 478 and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  As of now, every rule in Parts 478 & 479 is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated in the Constitution; violates Article I, §1; and violates the 2nd Amendment. But with Buhler’s proposed amendment, all those rules would become constitutional!

Furthermore, the amendment would provide constitutional authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make whatever future rules they want – and they would all be constitutional unless Congress objects and votes against them.

So the amendment vastly increases the powers of the federal government by legalizing what is now grotesquely unconstitutional.

  1. Daniel Webster’s Warning

We are in a state of moral, religious, intellectual, and psychological decline. We don’t know what our Constitution says, and didn’t bother to find out. We elected people who didn’t know and didn’t care – and they made a mess.

To fix the mess, we must learn and enforce the Constitution we have and elect people who know it and obey it.  We can gradually downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers. And as to Buhler’s proposed amendment, heed Daniel Webster’s warning:

“…If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; you have nothing to gain. We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people.  Miracles do not cluster.  That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism…”Webster’s Oration.

© 2017 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] Administrative law judges in Executive Branch agencies decide whether violations of agency rules have occurred. The agencies thus act as lawmaker, prosecutor, and judge!  Isaiah 33:22 says God is our Judge, Law-giver, and King. Because humans are corrupt, our Framers separated the functions into three separate branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  And since the Oath of Office requires persons within each branch to obey the Constitution – not the other branches – each branch has a “check” on the other branches.

[2] Where’s the constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education?  Energy? Agriculture?   Housing & Urban Development?  Labor?  Environmental Protection?  etc., etc., etc.?

[3] Our existing, but long ignored, Constitution limits federal power to the enumerated powers.  But the proposed amendment would supersede that limitation because it permits the exercise of federal power on whatever the Executive Agencies make rules about!

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com



Transgenders In The Military – Who Decides?

In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,[1] the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.

But we will look at the real issue:  Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?

Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic –let us consult and obey the US Constitution:

  • Article I, Section 8, clauses 11 – 13, delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and to provide and maintain a Navy.
  • Article I, Section 8, clause 14, delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
  • Article II, Section 2, clause 1, says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”

In Federalist Paper No 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. … his authority … would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy…”

So! All the powers over the Military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the Military Forces.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the Military. If Congress issues Rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.

Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the Military – we will not participate.”

1- Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell

The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, US Constitution.  That Article created the supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed.  Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 US Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The US Military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government.  The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[2]  They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.

And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).

The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the US Military.

2- Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”

Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the Military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States…”

But they would be wrong.  In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal laws – not re-write them.

Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the Country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.

3- Political Questions

Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”] the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795 which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.[3]  The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and

“We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied”.  “A question … respecting the boundaries of nations, is … more a political than a legal question; and … the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”

Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the Military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the Will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

4- The President’s “check” on the federal courts

Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the Truth about the powers of federal courts:

“…The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” [boldface mine; caps are Hamilton’s] [4]

An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.

5- Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place!  Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their Oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.

Endnotes:

1- The US District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, US Constitution.

2- Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, US Constitution.

3- 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.”

4- I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed.  Hamilton wrote most of The Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution.  What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for The Federalist Papers?  Beware of false friends and jealous men who undermine our Foundation.

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com



Why States Can’t Prevent A Runaway Convention

The danger of an Article V convention (which made James Madison “tremble”, caused Alexander Hamilton “dread”, and Chief Justice John Jay to say that another convention would impose an “extravagant risque”) is this: the delegates to the convention can run away: instead of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution, they can write a completely new Constitution with a new – and easier – mode of ratification.[1]

The convention lobby implicitly acknowledges this danger when they say State Legislatures should   pass “unfaithful delegate” laws to control delegates.[2]

Accordingly,  Wyoming passed a delegate law earlier this year which purports to empower the WY Legislature to “immediately recall” any delegate who makes an “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to charge with a felony any delegate who fails to follow the WY Legislature’s instructions on what he may do at the convention.  The Texas delegate law purports to make “invalid” any “unauthorized vote” at the convention, and to empower the TX Legislature to recall any delegate who violates his instructions.  But Tennessee takes the cake with its delegate law:  Not only does the TN law purport to “void” votes cast at the convention by TN delegates which are outside the instructions or limits placed on the delegates by the TN Legislature – and then to prosecute such delegates for a felony; the TN law also asserts that if all TN delegates vote or “attempt to vote” outside the scope of the instructions or limits, TN’s previously filed applications for an Article V convention are to be treated as “having no effect at all”.  Other States have passed similar laws.

Such laws are contrary to our Founding Principles and are based on false assumptions.  Accordingly, they are unenforceable and ineffective.

  1. Self-evident Rights and the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding.[3] It declares that all men are created equal; our rights are bestowed by God; our rights are unalienable; and the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

The Declaration is not “law” – it is higher than law, for it sets forth The Divine Standard which a Constitution – and the laws made pursuant to the Constitution – must meet.

It also declares that a People have the self-evident right to throw off their government and set up a new one.  With that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at our first amendments convention; and then, at State unfaithful delegate laws.

  1. The federal convention of 1787

After our Revolution, we operated under our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  But there were defects in the Articles, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  The States also drafted instructions which purported to restrict delegates to proposing amendments.

But the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote a new Constitution [the one we now have].  In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison invoked the Declaration of Independence and claimed, as justification for what they did,

“…the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,’…”

Yet State unfaithful delegate laws claim a power to divest The Representatives of the People – and to criminally prosecute them for exercising – what the Fundamental Act of our Founding declares is a “self-evident” right”!

  1. And what if the delegates make their proceedings secret?

 The State Legislators who vote for unfaithful delegate laws assume they will be able to know what is going on every minute of every day of the convention.

But Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 (where our present Constitution was drafted) shows that on May 29, 1787, the delegates voted to make their proceedings secret.

If delegates to a convention today vote to make the proceedings 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.

You might think that with cell phones & cameras, it’s impossible to have a secret meeting. But the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which “induces” State Legislators to push the COS application for an Article V convention, is experienced in conducting secret meetings with State Legislators.  WATCH this 6.5 minute video of a Georgia TV crew which attempted to get into a meeting held at a Georgia hotel of ALEC and Georgia Legislators.

ALEC, which supports the COS application for an Article V convention, is funded by the Koch Brothers and other mega-corporations.  The Koch Brothers spend vast sums on State politicians (e.g., Texas), to get their support for the COS application.  Do the Kochs want an Article V convention so they can get a new Constitution which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union?  And if there is a convention, will armed guards keep the press out?  If delegates have been bought by the Kochs, will they tweet & text to the world what they are up to behind closed doors?

  1. State Legislatures are “creatures” of their State Constitutions, and have no “competent authority” to control The Representatives of The People at an Article V convention

 Americans have forgotten a Principle which is the basis of free government: That political power originates with The People.[4]  The People create governments by means of constitutions.  Since a government is the “creature” of its constitution, it can’t be superior to its Creator, The People.

This is why at the federal convention of 1787, where our present federal Constitution was drafted, our Framers understood that only The People were competent to ratify the new Constitution.  George Mason said on July 23, 1787,

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it.  They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…”

Keeping that Principle firmly in mind, let’s look at Article V, US Constitution.

It provides that when two thirds of the State Legislatures (“mere creatures”) apply for it, Congress is to call a convention.  At that point, it is out of the State Legislatures’ hands – the bell has tolled, and State Legislatures can’t un-ring it.  Congress “calls” the convention (sets it up); but when it assembles, the delegates, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, are not answerable to State Legislatures (which are “mere creatures” of the State Constitution) or to Congress (which is a “mere creature” of the federal Constitution).  The delegates actually have the power to eliminate the federal and state governments – and that is precisely what the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America does.

Delegates to a federal convention called by the federal Congress, to perform the federal function of altering or replacing our federal Constitution, are performing a federal function, not a State function.  The delegates don’t represent any government, federal or state.[5] They are supposed to represent The People; but in our corrupt time, they are more likely to represent the Koch Brothers (because they have the cash).

Dust off your copy of the federal Constitution we already have, read it and defend it.  It filled all Europe with “wonder and veneration”.  If you don’t do this, we will lose it.

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

Endnotes:

[1] The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America creates a totalitarian dictatorship.  The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.  It is ratified by a national referendum [national popular vote] (Art. XII, §1).  Other proposed Constitutions are also waiting in the wings for a convention.

[2] The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) claims their model delegate bill “will eliminate the possibility of a ‘runaway convention’ the reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention.”

[3] Dr. Alan Keyes spoke of this on the radio some years ago; and I knew he had just handed me the Key to understanding our Constitution.

[4] See Federalist No. 22, last para (Hamilton).

[5] The term, “convention of states”, is a misnomer which gives the false impression that States control the convention.  In Rob Natelson’s speech on Sep. 16, 2010 [now removed from free access] he said he will no longer call it a “constitutional convention”, but will henceforth say, “convention of states” (pg.1-2).

This Chart illustrates who has the power to do what at an Article V convention.



From Duty To Be Armed To Permission To Carry

“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.”  Attorney Richard D. Fry[1]

Some are touting the federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38) as a bill which would expand our right to carry.  But if you will walk with me for a few minutes, I’ll show you a better path to take.

Let us look at the applicable First Principles, to which I propose we return.

1- Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large[2] to restrict our arms.  Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.  They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”.   Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training.[3]

2- What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.

Now listen:  No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens  to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!

Do you see?

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

3- Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

4- What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

  • who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and
  • who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and
  • who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So!  Even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut,[4] prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control.  Lest you think this a gain, consider that:  (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere!

5- What’s the solution?

Read our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Then you won’t fall for unconstitutional gimmicks like HR 38.

The gun rights organizations could perform valuable services to our Country by working for:

  • the repeal of the entire unconstitutional federal regulatory scheme respecting arms;
  • the repeal of all unconstitutional State regulatory schemes;
  • the revitalization of the State Militia to replace the federally controlled National Guard;[5] and
  • by providing more classes for Citizens in arms training.

And please stop lobbying for unconstitutional federal legislation!

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Publius Huldah: publiushuldah@gmail.com

 

Endnotes:

[1] From the late Attorney Richard D. Fry’s email of Dec. 10, 2015 to US Senator Moran, a co-sponsor of SB 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015.  Richard, who was my Friend, sent me a copy of his letter.

[2]  Pursuant to Article I, § 8, next to last clause, Congress has general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock yards, mints, federal courthouses and post offices, and such other places needed for Congress to exercise its enumerated powers.  The exercise of such powers by Congress over these small federal enclaves is restricted by the Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment. So Congress is prohibited from making, for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People to keep and bear Arms.  Congress may properly require individuals visiting federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles.  But Congress may not require Citizens to obtain and carry a permit or photo ID as a condition precedent to carrying a firearm.

[3] The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government.  Dr. Edwin Vieira’s short video shows how the State Militia were replaced by the federally controlled National Guard.

[4] The Constitution of the State of Connecticut says at Article I:  “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

[5] See A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE NRA, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, re revitalization of the Militia of the several States.  Dr. Vieira’s mind is a delight.



The George Mason Fabrication

“…of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” Federalist No. 1 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton.[1]

Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a tiny handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.

They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.

So what do we do about it?

  1. The silly answer of the convention lobby

The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

Now think about that:  When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits?  When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?

Of course not!  The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God.

But the convention lobby moves from silliness to insidiousness:  They say we can only get the amendments we need at an Article V convention.

  1. Why do they want a convention?

From the beginning, the enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  On Aug. 31, 1787, George Mason said “he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention.[2] 2

Such demands for another convention were made throughout the ratification process, and continued after our Constitution was ratified by the ninth State on June 21, 1788.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, among others, addressed these demands in their writings.

A convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution. Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to buy an Article V convention.  Their hirelings are propagandizing the People and are pushing State Legislatures all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:

  • Congress proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
  • Congress calls a convention if two thirds of the States apply for it.

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method.  We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.

James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another convention, “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country.[3]

Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  Federalist No. 85.[4]

The same goes for today.  If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one.[5]

Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention.[6]

The globalist elite [the Bush family, et al] want to move our Country into the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge, and a Parliament is set up over them.  Until recently, a copy of the Task Force Report on the NAU was posted at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations; now one must purchase a copy.  The globalists need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary .

Now that you see what’s at stake, let’s return to the claims of the convention lobby.

  1. The Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 1787

The convention lobby claims that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations.  E.g., Michael Farris wrote:[7]

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”  [boldface mine]

But Mason didn’t say that.  Nor did any other delegates say that.  They weren’t silly men; and they understood that amendments have a very different purpose.

  1. Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept a Journal.  I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.  Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments:

  • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision”.
  • George Mason said on June 11, 1787:

The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…” [boldface mine]

  • Alexander Hamilton said on 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.

Other primary source writings of the time show:

  • useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para).
  • “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
  • If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …”  (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19)[8]

That’s what they really said.

Amendments can’t “rein in” the federal government when it “violates its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. We cannot fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place!

And look at recent history:  The 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from banning Christian speech in the public square. The 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating the sale of firearms. The 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us without a warrant. The 5th Amendment didn’t stop them from regulatory takings.  The 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping thousands of other powers not delegated.

Now let’s look at the words of George Mason which the convention lobby has twisted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.

  1. The Dispute over the proper role of Congress in the amendment process

Under the Articles of Confederation (ART. 13), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.

The dispute at the federal convention of 1787 was whether Congress – under the second Constitution then being drafted – should have any power over the amendment process.

Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States.  On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:

“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution …”

But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without having to depend on Congress.  On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said, respecting Madison’s proposed wording:

“As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

Now remember!  Mason agreed with the other delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution. Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects.

Footnote 8 shows that the 11th Amendment was adopted to correct what the States saw as a defect in the powers delegated to the federal courts.  The 11th Amendment removed that delegated power from the federal courts.  But what if Congress hadn’t agreed to propose that amendment?  That type of scenario is what Mason’s words addressed.

Here are examples of other defects Congress might not agree to fix by amendment:

  • The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, 8, clause 1. But it was oppressive because it benefited infant industries in the North at the expense of the Southern States.  An amendment could provide that tariffs may be imposed only to raise revenue to carry out the delegated powers of the federal government; and may not be imposed to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one part of the Country at the expense of another part.  But Congress might not agree.
  • Slavery was permitted under our original Constitution. The federal fugitive slave laws (Art. IV, §2, clause 3) were oppressive.  Slavery is a defect to be repaired by amendment.  But Congress might not agree.

 Do you see?  Mason’s words, read together, show that his concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments the States wanted to correct defects in the federal Constitution.  

Neither Mason nor anyone else was so silly as to say that when the federal government “violates its constitutional limitations”, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

  1. Why was the convention method added to Article V?

That the convention method was added doesn’t mean that all thought it a terrific idea.  It was a compromise; and the delegates knew they couldn’t keep future generations from doing what they themselves had already done twice:  Invoking the Right, acknowledged in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and set up a new one. They invoked that Right during 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and during 1787, they invoked it again to throw off the Articles of Confederation – and the government it had created – and set up a new Constitution which created a new government.

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787: They ignored the Resolution of February 21, 1787 of the Continental Congress which called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”; they ignored the instructions from their States;[9] and they drafted a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification (only 9 States needed to ratify our Constitution of 1787).

There is nothing which can stop the delegates to an Article V convention from doing the same thing.  And remember:  New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works.

  1. What’s our real problem? Let’s man-up and address that

Our problem today is not a defective Constitution.  Our problem is ignorance, loss of virtue, and disobedience.  Our Framers expected us to be virtuous and informed; and the States to resist federal usurpations.[10]

Are we no longer worthy of the Constitution our Framers gave us?  If not, the globalists have plans for us, and they need an Article V convention to impose them.

Don’t fall into the trap they have set for us.  Open your eyes.

Endnotes:

1 My friend Don Fotheringham and I discussed this issue; this paper reflects his valuable insights.  His paper, “Article V is Deliberately Vague”, is HERE; and his excellent book, “The President Makers: How Billionaires Control U.S. and Foreign Policy”, is HERE.

2 Mason didn’t chop off his right hand.  He, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, refused to sign the Constitution:  see Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sep. 17, 1787.  Randolph wanted the States to be able to propose amendments to the proposed Constitution, and then all would be submitted to and finally decided on by another general convention:  Aug. 31, Sep. 10, and Sep. 15, 1787.  Gerry’s objections to the proposed Constitution were such that “the best that could be done…was to provide for a second general Convention”:  Sep. 15, 1787.

Note well: The federal convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”, and all referred to it as a “general convention” [search HERE for “general convention”, and you will see].  And in Madison’s Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville, he writes,

“…3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed …” [boldface mine]

An Article V convention is a “general convention”.

3 Madison opposed the convention method: Federalist No. 49 (Feb. 1788); his letter  to Turberville of Nov. 2, 1788; his letter to George Eve of Jan. 2, 1789; and on June 8, 1789, he circumvented the application previously submitted by Virginia on May 5, 1789 for an Article V convention, by introducing into Congress a proposed “bill of rights”.  That is the procedure we have followed ever since: When States want amendments, they instruct their congressional delegation to propose them.

4 In Federalist No. 85 (Aug. 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of antifederalists who wanted another convention so they could get rid of our newly ratified Constitution.  The “excellent little pamphlet” he refers to (9th para) was written during April 1788 by John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States) and shows:

“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.”

Jay warned in his Pamphlet that a new convention would run “extravagant risques” [risks]. 

 5 Even though Article V speaks of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the delegates will have the “self-evident” power, recognized in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off our existing Form of Government and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government.  And since the new Constitution drafted at an Article V convention will also have its own new mode of ratification, it is sure to be approved.

6 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum [Art 12, § 1].  Here’s the proposed Constitution for “The New Socialist Republic in North America”.

The Constitution 2020 movement is backed by George Soros, Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, and Marxist law professors.  They want a progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

7 Farris’ paper, “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V”, is HERE on the COS website; the copy I preserved is HERE.

8 Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl. 1).  But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).  So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from the federal courts the power to hear such cases.

 9 ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be agreed to by Congress and all of the States.  HERE are the instructions the States gave delegates to the federal convention of 1787:

  • “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

10 Nullification Made Easy and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved



Term Limits: A Palliative Not A Cure

May, 13, 2017

What’s the real problem with our federal government?  That people in Congress serve too many terms?  And if we get an Amendment to limit their terms, will our Land be healed?

Of course not!  The real problem is that the politicians we elect ignore our Constitution – yet we keep reelecting them.

As a result, the federal government exercises thousands of powers not delegated; but everyone goes along with it.  The States get federal funds for going along with unconstitutional federal programs; the People get all sorts of benefits, subsidies, and free stuff; and many live altogether at other peoples’ expense.  And all this free money is added to the national debt.[1]

Members of Congress also profit from ignoring our Constitution:  By exercising the thousands of powers not delegated, they obtain endless opportunities to become rich, powerful, and important.

So, unless we turn over a new leaf, learn our Constitution and obey it, renounce unconstitutional federal programs and benefits, and demand that people in Congress also obey it; limiting their terms by an Amendment merely increases the turnover of politicians in Congress who ignore our Constitution – and to whom we must pay luxurious lifetime pensions.

What would happen if we turned over a new leaf?

For starters, if we required Congress to stay within the enumerated powers, two things would happen:

  1. The job of US Senator or Representative would be so boring, few would want to be reelected. After all, how many times can you revise the bankruptcy code (authorized by I, § 8, cl. 4); fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.5); and organize the Patent and Copyright Office (authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.8)?
  2. There would be no opportunity to get rich while in Congress or build a power base. Also, the office would no longer attract those who go into politics for the sake of their own egos, pocketbooks, and neurotic power lust.

And if we also stopped pouring out the blood of our young people and our treasury for our constant military meddling all over the world, there would be very little for Congress to do.[2]

After the cleanup period [see footnote 2], the job of US Senator or Representative would become so boring – and so financially unrewarding – it would be seen as a civic duty to be stoically endured for a short time – instead of a cushy ticket to personal wealth, power, prestige, and a luxurious taxpayer funded retirement for life.

So a term limits amendment is a feel good palliative[3] which distracts us from dealing with the real problem:  People in Congress disregard the Constitution – but we keep re-electing them.

We could turn over a new leaf and fix our Country.  Do we have the wit and the will?  Who among you is willing to challenge the status quo and urge that we change direction?  If ever a nation needed to turn from its wicked ways, it is us.

You have a moral choice before you:  Consider this advice from a friend; or jump on the bandwagon pulled by the globalists and clamor for an Article V convention.

Endnotes:

1 The PEW Report shows what percentage of each State’s revenue for FY 2014 was from federal funds [click on “select a state” to see your State].  Yet the “balanced budget” amendment lobby blames the federal government for out of control spending!

2 A Congress which obeyed the Constitution would be very busy during the glorious time they were repealing unconstitutional federal statutes; dismantling unconstitutional federal programs, departments, and agencies; and impeaching and removing usurping federal judges.

3 Unlike a “balanced budget” amendment, a term limits amendment is not one of the worst ideas since sin.  But it doesn’t address the problem.  We need to focus on the real problem, not on palliatives.



Compact for America’s scheme for pre-ratification of a massive new taxes amendment

Do you remember the public discussions which went on for years about the proposed equal rights amendment to our federal Constitution? That’s how it’s supposed to be before an amendment is ratified: The People get an opportunity to hear the arguments, discuss it among themselves and their state legislators, and reject amendments which are bad.

What if someone found a way to circumvent this pesky public discussion, and get an amendment ratified before The People found about it? And even before the state legislators who ratified it found out what they had done? And what if this amendment delegated massive new taxing powers to Congress?

Such a scheme has been developed by Compact for America (CFA). They present their already prepared compact legislation to state legislators as a “balanced budget amendment”; and urge them to get it passed by their state legislature.

The provisions which authorize Congress to impose the new taxes, and which provide for pre-ratification of the new taxes amendment, are buried in some 15 pages of single-spaced excruciatingly convoluted and boring writing. Rare is the legislator who has the time to wade through the verbiage and figure out what it says.[1]

Once three fourths of the States have passed CFA’s compact legislation, the new taxes amendment is thereby ratified.

So that’s how an amendment to our Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress can be ratified before The People know what has been done to them; and before the state legislators who did it find out what they have done to the American People.

The scheme has already been passed by state legislators in Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Dakota; has been filed in Missouri as SB 13; and is now pending in Arizona (HB 2226), where it passed the House on February 9, 2017, [2] and is now before the Senate.

Let’s look at the particulars of the compact legislation.

I

HB 2226 does nothing to control federal spending or “balance the budget”

Section 1 of the Compact [page 2, line 16 of the pdf edition] allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes or add to the national debt! But that’s what Congress has been doing!

Sections 2 & 3 [page 2, lines 20-37] permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.

Section 4 [page 2, lines 38 et seq.] is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?

II

CFA’s BBA is an actually a grant of MASSIVE new taxing powers to Congress.

The true purpose of the compact legislation is hidden behind promises such as, “cutting federal spending”, “balancing the budget”, and “scaring Congress”. The true purpose of the Compact is to delegate to Congress MASSIVE NEW TAXING POWERS. Specifically, it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).

This is where the grant to Congress of the new taxing powers is set forth:

• Section 5 [page 3, lines 4-6] permits Congress, by a 2/3 vote of each House, to impose a new or increased “general revenue tax”.

• Section 6 [page 3, lines 24-26] defines “general revenue tax” as “any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…”

There it is! All Congress needs to impose a national sales tax and/or a national VAT tax (in addition to the income tax) is a 2/3 vote in each House!

Section 5 also permits Congress, by a simple majority of each House, to impose a “new end user sales tax” which would replace the federal income tax. But nothing requires Congress to impose a “new end user sales tax” to replace the income tax.

It will be up to Congress to decide whether to impose a new national sales tax and/or VAT tax on top of the existing income tax (if they get 2/3 vote of each House); or whether to impose a new end user sales tax to replace the income tax (if they get only a simple majority in each House).

So! CFA’s version of a BBA is not about “balancing the budget”, or “scaring Congress”, or “reducing federal spending”. It’s about giving the federal government massive new taxing powers!

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.”

III

When State Legislatures pass compact legislation such as HB 2226, they are actually pre-ratifying the new Amendment to the US Constitution which grants these massive new taxing powers to Congress.

Please note: If Arizona passes HB 2226, Arizona IS RIGHT THEN AND THERE RATIFYING THE AMENDMENT. I’ll show you:

HB 2226 says in Article IV, Section 7 (e) of the Compact [page 6, line 43, et seq.]:

“When any Article of this Compact prospectively ratifying the Balanced Budget Amendment is effective in any Member State, notice of the same shall be given together with a statement declaring such ratification and further requesting cooperation in ensuring that the official record confirms and reflects the effective corresponding amendment to the Constitution of the United States…” [boldface mine]

Article IX, Section 1, of the Compact [page 11, line 41 et seq.] says:

“Each Member State, by and through its respective Legislature [passage of HB 2226], hereby adopts and ratifies the Balanced Budget Amendment.”

There it is: If Arizona passes HB 2226, Arizona is thereby ratifying an amendment to the US Constitution which delegates massive new taxing powers to Congress.

When 38 States have passed legislation like HB 2226 – and when Congress approves it,[3] our Constitution is thereby AMENDED and Congress now has constitutional authority to impose a new national sales tax and a national VAT tax – even while keeping and increasing the income tax.

The provisions of the compact which deal with a convention – Articles V through VIII – are a smokescreen which obscures from state legislators the fact that when they pass legislation like HB 2226, they are pre-ratifying the amendment to our federal Constitution.

The convention is a formality – a free trip at taxpayers’ expense.

IV

What’s the Solution?

Don’t feed the beast by giving it massive new taxing powers. The solution is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Our Constitution already limits federal spending to the enumerated powers – learn what those powers are, and enforce the Constitution we already have.

And use your heads! You who foolishly believe that a BBA [whether CFA’s version or another version] will force Congress to reduce spending, know this: a BBA is a mandate for Congress to increase taxes, among other horrors.[4]

© 2017 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Legislators don’t have time to read the bills they vote on. That’s why they have bill summaries. The Compact legislation filed in Arizona has two bill summaries: HERE and HERE. Can you find where Arizona Legislators are informed they are pre-ratifying a new taxes amendment to the US Constitution if they pass the compact legislation?. 
2. Click on this link: see the sponsors and the votes. Do they know what they have done?.
3. Pursuant to Article I, §10, last clause, US Constitution, CFA’s Compact is not effective unless Congress approves it. Will Congress approve a Compact Amendment which delegates massive new taxing powers to them?.
THIS short article.

Balanced budget amendment: The solution? or deathblow?

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.

Typical Misconceptions

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.

Conclusion

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.

© 2016 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

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.”



How a balanced budget amendment would give the government lawful unlimited power

Does our existing Constitution permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want?

No! It contains precise limits on federal spending.

Federal spending is limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. If you go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will get a complete list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. Here’s the list:

• The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
• Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
• Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
• Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
• Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
• Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
• Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3)
• Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
• The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
• Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
• Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
• Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
• Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
• Military and Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
• Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
• The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
• Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).

That’s what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to spend money on. Did I leave anything out? I’m not infallible; so take a few minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the Constitution and see for yourself.

Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out this handful of delegated powers; and it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.[1]

Pursuant to Article I, §9, clause 7, the federal government is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Citizens could use this Statement and Account – which would be so short that everyone would have time to read it – to monitor the spending of their public servants.

So that’s how our existing Constitution limits federal spending:

• If it’s on the list of enumerated powers, Congress may lawfully spend money on it.
• But if it’s not on the list, Congress usurps powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it.

It was unconstitutional spending and unconstitutional promises (Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.) which got us a national debt of almost $19 trillion, plus a hundred trillion or so in unfunded liabilities.

Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money; the Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. By this time, the Progressives controlled both political parties and the federal government.

The Progressives wanted a federal budget because they wanted to spend money on objects which were not on the list of delegated powers.

A balanced budget amendment (BBA) would substitute a budget for the enumerated powers, and thus would legalize the current practice where Congress spends money on whatever they or the President put in the budget.

The result of a BBA is to legalize spending which is now unconstitutional – it changes the constitutional standard for spending from whether the object is on the list of enumerated powers to a limit on the total amount of spending.

• And to add insult to injury, the limits on spending are fictitious because they can be waived whenever Congress[2] votes to waive them.

And because a BBA would permit Congress to lawfully spend money on whatever is put in the budget, the powers of the federal government would be lawfully increased to include whatever THEY decide to put in the budget.

So a BBA would fundamentally transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers – because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power over ANY object they decide to put into the budget.

You must read proposed amendments and understand how they change our Constitution before you support them.

All federal and State officials take an oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3). When people in Congress appropriate funds for objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for objects not listed, they violate their oath to support the Constitution. According to the PEW Report, federal funds provided an average of 30% of the States’ revenue for FY 2013. Look up your State HERE. Were those federal funds used to implement unconstitutional federal programs in your State?

Power over education, medical care, agriculture, state and local law enforcement, environment, etc., is not delegated to the federal government: those powers are reserved by the States or the People. Congress spends on objects for which it has no constitutional authority; and bribes States with federal funds to induce them to implement unconstitutional federal programs. It was the unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing $19 Trillion debt.

How do we go about downsizing the federal government to its constitutional limits?

We stop the unconstitutional and frivolous spending one can read about all over the internet.

We begin the shutdown of unconstitutional federal departments and agencies by selecting for immediate closure those which serve no useful purpose or cause actual harm such as the Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.[3]

Other unconstitutional federal departments and agencies must be dismantled and their functions returned to the States or The People.

An orderly phase-out is required of those unconstitutional federal programs in which Citizens were forced to participate – such as social security and Medicare – so that the rug is not pulled out from American Citizens who became dependent. The phase-out could be funded by sales of unconstitutionally held federal lands.

The federal government is obligated (Art. I, §8, cl. 11-16) to provide for service related injuries suffered by our Veterans.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to appropriate funds for “post Roads” (Art. I, §8, cl. 7). While there may be room for argument as to what is included within the term, “post Road”; clearly, some federal involvement in road building is authorized by our Constitution. State dependence on federal highway funds might be reduced by eliminating or reducing federal fuel taxes, and the substitution of fuel taxes collected by individual States. And there is nothing immoral about toll roads.

Since our Constitution was written to delegate to the federal government only the few and defined powers enumerated in the Constitution, we don’t have to change the Constitution to rein in federal spending. The Constitution isn’t the problem – ignoring it is the problem. Let us begin to enforce the Constitution we have.

2016 Publius Huldah – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Our original Constitution authorized only excise taxes & tariffs on imports (Art. I, §8, clause 1), with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).
2. Compact for America’s (CFA) version of a BBA permits spending limits to be waived whenever Congress and 26 States agree. CFA’s version also authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax in addition to keeping the income tax! See THIS Paper.
3. George Washington’s Cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, and Attorney General.



Publius Huldah Archive 2012 – 2015