1. FOR NEW MEMBERS & OTHERS

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 6, 2009 at 6:01pm

If we can educate enough People about The Constitution, we can avoid bloodshed.
Also, our enemy is not the few people in the government in Washington, D.C. Our enemy is the people who put them there and want them to stay there. So, it wouldn't be a "revolution", it would be a civil war.

Let's work hard and hope it doesn't come to pass that we have to defend ourselves, our families, our communities. But, of course, I am aware of Federalist No. 46, 8th para to the end.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 8, 2009 at 10:18am

Right you are, Freedoms Voice! I am working on a memo of law showing that the States do have the power to recall U.S. Senators & Congressmen. It won't surprise you to hear that many DENY that the States have this right.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 8, 2009 at 10:50am

Oh yes, the attacks! They do come from those who are supposed to be on our side, don't they? I am horrified at the nastiness I see coming from some of them.

They have their pet theories which, if implemented, would cause dreadful harm; they don't have the background or training to understand the ramifications of the implementation of their pet theories; their minds are completely closed; and so WE must take time and effort to defeat their silly ideas.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 8, 2009 at 6:26pm

Hello, Freedoms Voice! Just google "Publius Huldah" and you'll see my website. Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Lori Merriam on October 5, 2011 at 9:41am

I am working with a group now and we are dealing with what you've stated above about PET THEORIES and their implementation.  And when you question them about their knowledge or experience they become irrate and belligerent.  The sad thing is some of their off the wall ideas are already law and trying to stand against such silly/unrealistic/unconstitutional laws, once on the books, is very difficult and no one wants to admit it was unconstitutional and a mistake.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 7, 2009 at 6:58am

My dear Lady, Of course you are smart enough! And anyone who wants to join and learn is welcome. And I agree with you completely about cheetahs!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on November 8, 2009 at 11:01am

I do love Alexander Hamilton. I think his point is that while the federal judges are charged with applying the Constitution and ascertaining it's meaning, they are not the final authority. WE are. And so WE have the right to demand that federal judges who usurp powers be impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench. The Federalist No. 81, 9th para.

Meanwhile, we are not obligated to submit to their lawless rulings! See my Paper, "The TRUTH about 'Separation of Church & State'" at my website. Their banning of religious speech from the public square was completely lawless! Yet, the sheeple went along with it! No more, I say!

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Grose on April 25, 2010 at 10:44am

All legislative power is given to congress, not the courts. So if Congress can make no law prohibiting freedom of speech, then they can make no law prohibiting religious speech, and the courts can make no law at all.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on April 25, 2010 at 11:41am

You are correct! But here is the problem: The addition of the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments) created a logical inconsistency. In fact, portions of the "bill of rights" are logically INCOHERENT with the Declaration of Independence and the unamended Constitution. Consider:

(1) The Declaration of Independence says your rights are granted by GOD and are unalienable. "Unalienable" means that no one - not even a federal judge - can restrict, adjudicate, limit, define, infringe, etc. your Rights. B/c GOD gave them to you. Clear?

(2) The "Bill of Rights" - the 1st 10 Amendments - are part of the Constitution. Thus, they are matters which "arise under the Constitution". Clear?

(3) Art. III, Sec. 2 gives the federal courts judicial power over all Cases "arising under this Constitution". THIS IS WHAT GAVE THE FEDERAL COURTS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE "RIGHTS" LISTED IN THE "BILL OF RIGHTS".

This is extremely important: Do you all now see the logical inconsistency & incoherence? Do you now see that any "right" listed in any amendments to the Constitution will be adjudicated by federal judges? You will have the likes of Sonia Sotomayor determining the extent of & scope of your GOD-given rights?

So! It was via the 1st Amendment & Art. III, Sec. 2 that the Supreme Court was given judicial power to adjudicate our rights of religious & political speech! So they banned religious speech they don't like. See: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/
They also banned certain political speech. Some seek to have them use the 2nd amendment to ban private ownership of firearms.

Alexander Hamilton understood this! He warned us! See Federalist No. 84 (10th para). But we had blind fools then, just as we have them today. People who insist on positions which they do not understand, and who refuse to listen.

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Grose on April 25, 2010 at 10:39am

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning? If this was the fact then what is the point of taking an oath when you join the army to uphold & support a document you can not understand, why have congress take an oath if they can't understand it? Thank God it was written in English so we all can read it and understand it, the problem with congress is that if by chance they did read it, they do understand it and then ignore it. This we should not tolerate. Citizens should always review the constitutionality of any law when they are in the position of final check & balance, the Jury!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on April 25, 2010 at 12:17pm

Excellent question: As a general rule, federal judges were supposed to be the "experts" who were charged with ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution. In doing this, they were to look to the "original intent", not into the fetid recesses of their own corrupt minds.

Our Constitution has "checks & balances"! There are checks & balances on federal judges. They can be impeached, tried, convicted & removed from the bench for usurpations Federalist No. 81 (9th para) That is the "legislative" check.

If the president disagrees with a decision of federal judges, the check is to disregard it Federalist No. 78 (7th para). That is the "executive" check.

Para 4 of the following paper shows why the federal courts are not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY! This is the "Peoples' " check.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-should-states-do...

Now do you see why soldiers take an Oath to support the Constitution? B/c THEY, you, I, etc. are the ultimate authority as to its meaning. Our failing was that instead of bothering to learn our Founding Documents ourselves, we shirked our responsibilities and handed them over to ...... federal judges! And look at what a mess they have made!

Congressmen take the Oath b/c they have an independent duty to support it. They may not delegate that responsibility to the federal judges. Their Oath is to "support the constitution" (Art. VI, clause 3). It is not to obey federal judges!

Ah, jury nullification! You are right. BUT judges will not permit defense counsel to so inform the jury. So we must educate potential jurors outside of the courtroom where they are not permitted to hear such talk.

Permalink Reply by Michael Hutton on November 9, 2009 at 5:06pm

Hello Publius,

I understand that you would like to structure this Great course, but I have a question whose answer might put my mind at ease about an issue.

QUESTION: What is the ligitimacy of an international treaty (global warming) signed by the President without the ratification of Congress?

Thank you,

Michael

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page