01/4/21

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 rolls 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.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 pari materia) 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 the 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 22nd Amendment imposes term limits on the office of the 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. 2 says:     

“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 that 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].

12/30/20

Article IV, §4, US Constitution REQUIRES Congress, the 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. 2 provides 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 act in 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 basis 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 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 that 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 MilitiaWhen 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 their 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 wartime 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.”

  1. 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.

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.!

12/2/20

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 in 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 the authority to remedy the election fraud committed in their State.

  1. 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.
  1. 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 Constit., 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Election Fraud is a federal crime

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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 State Legislators to be bold and do what is right.

  1. 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.

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 in Article II, §1, clause 5, and the 12th Amendment, last sentence.

3 Whether or not a President-elect or Vice President-elect meets 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.]

10/12/20

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 the 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 the 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 the 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 usurpations 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 usurpations 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.

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.

12/7/19

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

By: 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.

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]
  • Mark Meckler is president of “Citizens for Self-Governance” which launched the “Convention of States Project”. This website discusses funding for Citizens for Self-Governance.
  • Koch brothers from Conservapedia [link]

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

11/7/19

Article 5 of the US Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) isn’t telling you

By: 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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 was 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.
  3. 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.
  4. States should rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

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 wants 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…”

10/6/19

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

By: 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 air1 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”. i.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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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 Progressives12 took over our Country during the early 1900’s, 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”.

  1. 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.

End Notes:

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 1880’s, 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 1900’s, 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 For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at end notes 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.

09/4/19

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 – merchandise – 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.

Continue reading

11/15/18

Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”, and how to put federal judges in their place.

By Publius Huldah

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  

Continue reading

10/30/18

What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

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!

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.