The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, And Obamacare

Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who ordained and established the Constitution, listed therein every power We delegated to the federal government. If We didn’t list a power, the federal government doesn’t have it.1

Furthermore, we delegated only a very few powers to the federal government.

Accordingly, Congress has strictly limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These powers are listed primarily at Art. I, §8, clauses 3-16, and are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & roads. Several Amendments delegate to Congress some power over civil rights.

These enumerated powers are the only areas where the federal government has lawful authority over The States and The People in The States. In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, §10]the States and The People retain supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. Go here for a complete list of all of Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Obamacare is altogether unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the legislative powers We granted to Congress. Nothing in Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to control our medical care (or to exercise the other fearsome powers in the Act).

I challenge those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court [Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, & Breyer], all other totalitarians, liberals, and parasites who support obamacare, to point to that clause of The Constitution where We delegated to the federal government power to control our medical care.

Article I, §8, clauses 1-16: What it Really Means.

Those five (5) lawless judges on the supreme Court looked at Art. I, §8, cl.1, and found power in Congress and the Executive Branch to take over our medical care – even to decide whether we will receive medical treatment or be denied medical treatment.2

And how did The Lawless Five do this? I’ll show you. But first, let’s see what the Constitution really says. Article I, §8, clauses 1 & 2 read:

Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]

Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:

  • Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
  • Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on Bankruptcies;
  • Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
  • Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
  • Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
  • Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
  • Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
  • Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
  • Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
  • Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
  • Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
  • Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
  • Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
  • Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.

Add to this short list of enumerated powers; the “housekeeping powers” itemized in the paper linked here; the salaries authorized by Art. I, §6, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, next to last clause; Art. III, §1, cl. 1, and others on the civil list; together with the Amendments addressing civil rights; and you have the sole purposes for which Congress is authorized to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, and spend money for the Country at Large.

And this is precisely what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says in Federalist Paper No. 41 (last 4 paras). Some people were concerned that

“…the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. “ (4th para from end).

Madison answered the above objection by saying that one would be grasping at straws to stoop to such a silly “misconstruction”. He said:

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare’ .” (3rd para from end)

“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? … Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning … is an absurdity…” (2nd para from end)

In the final paragraph of Federalist No. 41, Madison says Art. I, §8, cl. 1 does not vest in Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever: Clause 1 is merely a “general expression”, the meaning of which is “ascertained and limited” by the clauses which “immediately follow” it.

To put Madison in modern English: Clauses 1 & 2 grant to Congress the power to raise money; clauses 3-16 enumerate the objects on which Congress may appropriate the money so raised, thus limiting clauses 1 & 2.

THAT is the Constitution We ratified.

What the Lawless Five Assert it Means:

See where it says in Clause 1, “To lay and collect Taxes”? The Lawless Five assert that this phrase authorizes Congress to lay & collect taxes for any purposes whatsoever.

They IGNORED the “specification of the objects [Clauses 3-16] alluded to by these general terms” [Clauses 1 & 2] – the “enumeration of particulars” which “explain and qualify” “the general phrase”.

In effect, they repealed Clauses 3-16. In a nutshell, the Lawless Five asserted that Congress and the President may do whatever they want to us. Just call it a “tax”.

What can WE Do?

First, we must disabuse ourselves of the monstrous lie that the federal government We created by Our Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and that the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. 3 That is a pernicious ideology antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. Once you understand that, our remedies are readily apparent:

1. Impeach Federal Judges who violate their Oaths of Office. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, §1, cl. 1) – usurp power, they must be removed from office. Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 81 (8th para) of:

“… the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in … [the House] … and of determining … them in the … [Senate] … give[s] to … [Congress] … upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations…” 4

We must elect Representatives and Senators who will support our Constitution by impeaching & removing usurping federal judges. We must elect people who will rid of us The Lawless Five.

2. Elect Representatives and Senators who will also repeal obamacare and dismantle everything which has been implemented so far.

3. States must nullify obamacare. Here are Nullification Resolutions States may use to nullify obamacare and the HHS rules.

State officials, legislators, and judges all take The Oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3); and that Oath requires them to nullify obamacare.

4. We the People must stop deceiving ourselves about the motives of people such as obama and the Lawless Five. They are not ‘basically decent people who just have different opinions”. They are Dolores Umbridges who are determined to reduce us to abject slavery. PH.

Endnotes:

1 Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. E.g.:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)

2 There is much more in obamacare than transferring to the Executive Branch power to decide whether we will receive or be denied medical care. It is a parade of horribles worthy of Stalin, Hitler, and Anita Dunn’s hero, Mao. It transfers total control of our lives to the Executive Branch.

3 Our beloved Thomas Jefferson writes in para 1 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

“1. Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes,–delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” [boldface mine]

4 With obamacare, the Lawless Five colluded with Congress & the Executive Branch to subvert Our Constitution. Our Framers warned us of such connivances between the branches of the federal government:

Alexander Hamilton tells us that Congress can’t successfully usurp powers unless The People go along with it! In Federalist No.16 (next to last para), he points out that because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, the People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.

James Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):

“…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; …” [boldface added]

Hamilton and Madison are telling us that We don’t have to go along with obamacare just because Five totalitarians on the supreme Court want the Executive Branch to have total control over our lives. This is where we draw the line. We must Resist this tyranny.




About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • toptrakker

    Be nice if “We the people” would STAND UNITED enough to compel lawmakers to cause everything related to government be composed in plain understandable language, so that anyone able to read can understand what is being presented and expected to be complied with. Another thing entirely; it baffles me that so many receivers of government assistance refuse to accept the fact that the aid they receive comes from those who work and pay taxes. I have had some argue to me that the food stamps, section 8, etc. does not cost the taxpayers anything, because the government just prints the money to give to them. Stupidity or ignorance? I’ll probably never understand. By the way, ordinary citizens can now buy drones for $300.00 plus shipping and handling; http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=ar+drone+2&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=1696643684&ref=pd_sl_8jyvlg086r_e

  • http://www.facebook.com/grant.halverson.1 Grant Halverson

    I believe there should be NO Federal Dept of Education – education should be at the state and local level – that’s all there is to it. There’s NOTHING in our constition that says the federal govt should have ANY control over our education. KarenWI

  • http://www.facebook.com/larry.e.hewett Larry E. Hewett

    What can we do to change all this? I mean a realistic way.

  • Knife10

    I guess if we want to create a limited federal government we are going to have to write a document that is unambiguous in its terminology and less flowery in verbage.

  • Black Scarab

    After this last week and throughout this tyrannical Oblunderamamao occupation, does ANYONE believe Obie is a Constitutional scholar?
    Would he could he should he can he even quote any of this fine article above?

  • Ethan Ellingson

    And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Mt. 28:18

    Not much to guess Who’s in charge, is there?

    None can write a law in contradiction to His and be considered approved.

    What a bunch of old English lawyers penned down in 1789 should never be exalted above the perfect Law of Liberty. (But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. James)

    America with her governing authorities has similarities to Jerusalem’s at the time of the Incarnation: “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition… …invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” –Jesus in Mark 7.

    • Davy Crockett

      This straw man argument about this made up god called “We the People” is primarily false. While I can’t vouch for every American, and a few of the non Christians may follow such an idea, nobody on these websites is that ignorant. The concept of “We the People” is not evil in of itself. It is neutral and it’s morality depends upon the make up of the people. This is seen in the Bible when God made the Mosiac Covenant. The arbitrator was Moses and the other party entering in this covenant was none other than We the People of Israel. Moses read the terms of the covenant, then the People agreed to them and swore to them (Ex.24:7). This is no different nor is it evil what We the People of first each Colony (because they both consented to and ratified the Constitution) and the United States did.

      We the People are also individually and collectively are God’s proxy on earth. This was true racially under the Old Covenant with the nation of Israel and this is true today under the New Covenant with Christians. (Eph 2:20-22 1st Pe 2:5 ) So even if one were to set up a “theocracy” today, it would still be granted it’s power by We the People, for who else is there on earth to do so? There is no hereditary line of Levite and Aaronite priests that God hand picked for His work. Neither is the eternal line of David, the “scepter” of rule, hand picked and appointed by God to rule present in this land. And few are the prophets in this land to point out the anointed of God. This leaves only His servants, His People, that is Christians, that is We the People to appoint leaders to rule them, just as the Christian Founders of this nation set up. They knew the power did not originate in the People, which is why they said this government can only work with Christian men in office. Because this power of authority is from God (Rom. 13), but has been granted to men to carry out His will here on earth in this New Covenant age.

       

      John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David, being that there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality (see “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” by clicking my name, our website, and Online Books page), you’ve only succeeded in condemning the NON-Christian framers and WE THE PEOPLE.

      Anyone who believes the key late 18th-century founders were Christians needs to read Dr. Albert Mohler’s recent interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer. Dr. Frazer proves by their writings (without cherry picking them) that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Google Dr. Mohler’s interview with Dr. Frazer. The top entry with be the audio of the interview; the second entry will be the transcript of the audio. (Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.)

      As for President Adam’s quote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      This is an accurate quotation. However, it’s often employed by Christians as if Adams was referring to Christianity and Yahweh’s morality as codified in His
      commandments, statutes, and judgments. This is untrue. Adams emphasized that the same “moral liberty resides in Hindoos and Mohametans, as well as in
      Christians” (John Adams, Letter no. 13 to John Taylor (1814), in “Works of John Adams,” 6:474.)

      He once asked, “Where is to be found theology more orthodox or phylosophy [sic] more profound than in the introduction to the [Hindu] Shast[r]a?” (John Adams, December 25, 1813, letter to Jefferson, in “Adams-Jefferson Letters,” 2:412.)

      According to Adams, “religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.” (August 28, 1811, letter to Benjamin Rush, in “Works of John Adams,” 9:636.)

      Any nation’s constitution and government benefits from moral Christian citizens, even those nations whose constitution are not based upon Yahweh’s morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) – such as the United States of America. However, when such constitutions are not based upon Yahweh’s law, it is inevitable that such nations will become more and more immoral and corrupt, being they do not have a Biblical standard to fall back upon. Case in point, the United States of America today.

    • Davy Crockett

      Here is the truth behind Ted’s use John Adam’s “quote”. Cherry picking is one thing, but this goes way beyond that. Not only has he pulled that quote from John Adams out of context, but has twisted it so far from what he was actually saying, it’s a complete distortion of historical facts . Here is the actual full quote without distortion:

      “You say by “moral liberty.” Will you be so good as to give me a logical, mathematical, or moral, or any other definition of this phrase, “moral liberty;” and to tell me who is to exercise this “liberty;” and by what principle or system of morality it is to be exercised? Is not this liberty and morality to reside in the great and universal element, “the people?” Have they not always resided there? And will they not always reside there?

      This moral liberty resides in Hindoos and Mahometans, as well as in Christians; in Cappadocian monarchists, as well as in Athenian democrats; in Shaking Quakers, as well as in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian clergy; in Tartars and Arabs, Negroes and Indians, as well as in the people of the United States of America.”

      To see the whole letter click below:

      http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2104&chapter=159956&layout=html#a_2828237

      It is obvious to anyone not pushing an anit-American agenda that what Adams is referring to is the “moral liberty” that every people on earth has, that is the ability to set up a free government if they choose too. This particular series of letters to John Taylor are responses to Taylor’s attempt to question John Adams defense of the Constitution. Specifically, Taylor asserts that Adams said, “…that monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or mixtures of them, constituted all the elements of government.”. Adams responds that he never said this and that, “There is but one element of government, and that is, THE PEOPLE.”. He continues to explain that the people will their government to be free or slave (basically by allowing it) and the people will decide (by allowing) what kind of government they’ll be stuck with. Then he questions Taylor’s response that the kind of government will be decided by “moral liberty”, which Adams then states “moral liberty” resides in THE PEOPLE.

      To read to whole source volume click below:

      It is obvious to anyone not pushing an anit-American agenda that what Adams is referring to is the “moral liberty” that every people on earth has, that is the ability to set up a free government if they choose too. This particular series of letters to John Taylor are responses to Taylor’s attempt to question John Adams defense of the Constitution. Specifically, Taylor asserts that Adams said, “…that monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or mixtures of them, constituted all the elements of government.”. Adams responds that he never said this and that, “There is but one element of government, and that is, THE PEOPLE.”. He continues to explain that the people will their government to be free or slave (basically by allowing it) and the people will decide (by allowing) what kind of government they’ll be stuck with. Then he questions Taylor’s response that the kind of government will be decided by “moral liberty”, which Adams then states “moral liberty” resides in THE PEOPLE.

      To read to whole source volume click below:

      http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.phphttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David, you constantly amaze me how well you fulfill the proverb that “no one is so blind as those who refuse to see.” Anyone reading the context you provided of the quote I provided can easily see that it only further verifies that Adams was a polytheists and considered all religious ethics the same.

    • http://www.premiercleanandrestore.com/ Ethan David Ellingson

      Well, the church, the members of His Body, are His human proxy here on earth. We can agree on that I guess. And yes, Father has structured the Arbitration differently now. There is a new priesthood that does not involve Moses, Aaron, Levi or animal barbeques. It is however, in, through and with, the PHYSICAL royal line of the House of David via Yashua Messiah – High Priest. And yes, we agree the source of all governing authority is this same God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob named Yahweh. (Least that’s my best guess at pronouncing the tetragrammeton “YHWH”.)

      We the people have perpetrated Baal worship in the land. Baal and Ashtaroth worship (purposeful or unintentional) involves exulting men and women and their policies while ignoring Yahweh’s exclusive legislative authority in areas He’s addressed in His Holy Scriptures. The Baals argue for man-made modes of government and petition, justifying the commandeering of His royal right to rule (via His Law and His people) by pointing to the will of the masses to legitimize their usurpation. The obedient Christian can have no part in such rebellion to the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. This is not a fanciful, contrived or exaggerated notion. It is present, historical and Scriptural reality. It should be obvious, but Christians cannot put faith in “we the people” and the U.S. Constitution while setting aside Christ, His kingdom and His Word in the governance of American society. The colonial Minute Men’s cry was “No king but King Jesus!” But their cry was apparently misinterpreted by Convention Delegates as “No king but we the people”. This is what happened during the Constitutional Convention (of which the patriot Patrick Henry said, “I smell a rat!” and refused to attend.) The Pilgrims, Puritans and Quakers that made up the civil body politic in the colonies immediately demanded 187 point “bill of rights” changes to what the good ol’ English lawyers had penned down in 1789. “We the people” were duped into thinking there were such things as “rights” when in Truth there are only responsibilities.

      The obedient Christian does not have a choice as to whom he will obey. He is duty-bound and obligated by love for Christ to serve the King first and foremost, and respect any rulers that are governing in keeping with His Law and the spirit of Romans 13 which states that governing authorities are simply one of His servants through whom He executes His wrath on the evil doer. No matter what we the people have got together and determined, the Christian’s modus operandi is to serve one Master to the exclusion of all others; especially those would lift themselves over Him. If Elijah were among we Americans today, he would probably be asking the same question he asked the Israel of old: “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Yahweh is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him. But the people did not answer him a word.”

      By creating laws that are antithetical to God’s, the Federal Government, State Governments, County and local magistrates usurp and compete for supremacy in the hearts of men. They exult themselves against the knowledge of God. The United States Constitution is the “supreme” example.
      It is the Baal worshiper’s sermon on the mount. How dare we call our courts
      supreme. There is One Judge and Lawgiver.

  • LAZARUSXXX@MSN.COM

    ONLY WAY TO PUT IT AS FAR AS ALL THE B.S. FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE IS MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND ZIP, YOUR GUNS ARE GONE AND WE ALL BECOME SOCIALISTS AND BOW TO OUR MASTER LIBS IN WASHINGTON,
    MOTTO,” BEND OVER AND GRAB THE ANKLES, HERE COMES WASHINGTON”

  • J J

    Judges are to rule by the Constitution and the law not by their personal agendas. But it seems that no judge is untouchable or not available to bribes or other compensation – they are human and that is why their position should not be a lifelong position. When they rule by personal agenda, the citizens of our country are at risk. The citizens of this country are reduced to voting every other year on their regional officials who go to Washington to be intimidated, insulted and threatened or maybe bribed by their party leaders into submission. It has nothing to do with what is right or what is good for the people who elected them. I, personally, feel rather helpless in regards to our government. My elected officials, who I voted against, don’t listen to my thoughts or wishes, desires or concerns. I see more and more regulations and taxes that are making me poorer while the judges, politicians and others are getting more and more wealthy at my expense.

  • Shagnasty1

    Unfortunately we have been neutered a long time ago and are unable to legally stop these people without an outright revolt. We try to vote them out but there are too many foolish liberals and parasites in general to get rid of enough of them. Then once their control is established and we try to end it some federal judge reinstates it. Look no further than California where in 1994 federal Judge
    Mariana Pfaelzer, a Jimmy Carter appointee, overturned Prop 187 where the citizens of California voted 59 to 41 percent to keep illegal aliens from receiving state aid other than in an emergency.

    What I’m saying is conservatives try to work within our Constitution which the liberals long ago trashed.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Publius Huldah: “Our federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. This means that WE THE PEOPLE, who ordained and established the Constitution, listed therein every power We delegated to the federal government. If We didn’t list a power, the federal government doesn’t have it.”

    Really!?! We hear this all the time. But the government created by the Constitution just keeps exercising more and more abusive power regardless what the people think, say, or do. As early as the mid-19th century, Libertarian attorney Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) wrote that the
    Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or
    has been powerless to prevent it.” (Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. 7, The Constitution of No Authority)

    Time to rethink what the framers provided us. Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared with Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11). Take our Constitution Survey and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of the 565-page “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. The Survey will be found in the right-hand sidebar.

    • Davy Crockett

      You seem to think some magical form of government will cure the faults of human nature, but you are mistaken. Paul told us what we need to maintain liberty and society: “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be men, be strong, Let all your things be done with love.” (1st Co. 16:13-14) It is the responsibility of the people to maintain what the Christian Founding Father’s founded, and it is here that failure lies, not in the Founders. No matter how many scriptures we codify into law, it will still be carried out by imperfect men who are prone to corruption.

      So lets evaluate your plan some. You offer up this idea as better than what our Christian Founders began for us, but your proof is lacking. Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David, thank you for another opportunity to share with others these vital truths from Scripture.

      Theocracy is inherent in the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). Consequently, unless you don’t believe the First Commandment is still relevant under the New Covenant, theocracy is not only mandated but unavoidable.

      When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First
      Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

      Furthermore, it needs to be understood that all non-existent false gods (1
      Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another.

      Theocracy is also inherent in Romans 13:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:1-4, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

      Anyone who believes the key late 18th-century founders were Christians needs to read Dr. Albert Mohler’s recent interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer. Dr. Frazer proves by their writings (without cherry picking them) that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Google Dr. Mohler’s interview with Dr. Frazer. The top entry with be the audio of the interview; the second entry will be the transcript of the audio. (Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.)

    • Davy Crockett

      Ex. 20:2 states “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” No disagreement there, but that is not speaking to form of government, rather to who one worships. Seeing as you are not the writer of our dictionary, you can’t play word games to change their meanings just to suit your doctrines. We are discussing FORM of government. There are many forms. We are not ignorant peasants, we know all laws are someone’s morality, that is not the debate here.

      Rom 13 is addressing Christian conduct and relationship under any government we happen to be under. There is not a word about what form of government we should establish. 1st Co. 6:1-4 is addressing Church government for Christian communities under whatever government they happen to be, especially for ungodly governments. If the government was godly that they were under, they would not need these provisions from Paul. So still no mandate for theocratic form of government. 1st Co. 10:4-6 is primarily addressing self control of your mind. It is also about apologetics and preaching the gospel. It is does not in anyway mandate a theocratic form of government. 1st Tim. 1:8-11 has nothing to do with form of government either, but the good New Covenant application of God’s Law in our lives. So having gone through your response, I find no satisfactory answers to my questions and not answer to the last question.

      Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age? Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible? One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.?

    • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

      David: “Ex. 20:2 states ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ No disagreement there….” Oh, but there is disagreement. Your promotion of the framers’ government and laws (which are antithetical to Yahweh’s) IS a promotion of another god.

      Furthermore, being that you refuse to accept the irrefutable evidence from the key framers’ own writings (which has been provided to you on numerous times) that they were not Christians in the Biblical sense of the word (some of whom, such as Thomas Jefferson, were antichrists), you also become a participant in their sins (2 John 1:7-11).

    • Davy Crockett

      Lets see folks, I refuted each scripture given as completely off point. I asked key questions and get no answer and all he says is “No its wrong, they were ungodly“? Which argument do you believe?

  • blackhawk

    I wonder how or who got to Roberts. He should have ruled on the exact wording as presented. Not chance it to suit Obama.

  • CapeConservative

    Please someone explain to me how a bill that had no severability clause in it when passed is allowed to become law after some parts of it have been changed or removed. It was an ‘all or nothing’ bill when presented to us by Speaker Pelosi – ABSOLUTELY NO changes were permitted. So….how did it become a tax? Is that not a change from the original intent of the bill? How are they picking and choosing to remove certain parts of the bill? What happened to the ALL OR NOTHING aspect of the legislation????

    • Tom

      You can thank the twisted interpretation/ruling of the Supreme Court on Justice Roberts who ruled that Obamacare was simply only a tax, which makes it constitutional (just like they did to pass Social Securuty) but then he also ruled that it wasn’t a tax because if it were truely a tax, it couldn’t be adjudicated until AFTER the tax goes into affect (see Anti-Injunction Act, 1867) and we were all (at least those of us who actually pay taxes) paying for Obamacare 2 years before any of it went into effect! Lock and load!

  • BigBoa

    The mighty Boa has said it a thousand times if he has said it once. The people of this nation have NOBODY to blame but themselves. We are no longer governed according to the Constitution. The people apparently could not care less. The examples that proves this would fill a very long book. But the population has become far too apathetic, complacent and lazy to care.

    The PEOPLE of this nation are charged in the Constitution itself with the DUTY to rid the nation of any oppressive government. We are now governed by tyrants far worse than ANYTHING the Founders were faced with. Instead of any form of real action, people moan and ask “who will lead us?”…. Anyone who even HINTS at doing what REALLY needs to be done is treated as some sort of lunatic. ANY suggestion of violence is shunned.

    The Founders didn’t “negotiate” a new nation. Tyrants don’t relinquish power of their own free will. Unfortunately nobody heeded the warnings before the election. The mighty Boa told you exactly why King Putt had to be removed from office BEFORE October, otherwise it would be too late. He spent his first 4 years preparing and consolidating his powers. Now it will be next to impossible. THIS is why he wanted control over all communications, food, energy sources, etc. At even the SLIGHTEST inkling of people massing, cell phoned and internet will go down. No fuel to drive, etc…… He is quite prepared now…

  • A. Levy

    All of the above is quite interesting and factual, but it means nothing when you rule a nation of gullible, weak, sheep, who are far more interested in twitter and facebook, than they are in their country, and their own freedoms and liberties. They are kept occupied by the “digital anesthesia” supplied to them by the media.

    Perhaps someday, they’ll get a tweet telling them that they have lost their freedom and liberty and that twitter is closing down. Then, and only then, will you get their attention. But as usual, it will be too late. That’s when they will find out the true cost of weakness and stupidity.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Publius-Huldah/100000104874733 Publius Huldah

      Do you do anything in addition to complaining about how bad things are and how stupid other people are? Or do you try to turn on the lights?

      I devote my entire life to trying to turn on the lights.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ted.madej Ted Madej

      You go Girl !!

    • http://www.facebook.com/pat.pettie.9 Pat Pettie

      But the blinds can’t see even the lights are on. In addition, the hydro bills will be quite expensive, LOL
      Thank you for the article, I did learn a lot. Can you help Dr. Orly Taitz on the cases against obama’s illigibility? Justice is another casualty of corruption. The courts kept throwing her cases out. It was the actions of the courts that so unjust and incomprehensible decision rendered by dishonest judges; have led to a a general distrust for the legal system.

  • Tom

    ObamaCare? What about the other 488 (at last count) departments and agencies?
    We need a new Amendment stating that “Congress shall pass no fully undefined legislation.” I’m sick of those S.O.B.s simply passing a “concept” like ObamaCare with nothing being defined, then creating departments and agencies of unelected people who then make the laws.
    Article I, Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”. Only WE THE PEOPLE can delegate legislative powers because we are soveriegn according to our founding principles. Legislative power cannot be further delegated. The reason for that is so that if WE THE PEOPLE don’t like the laws being passed, we can vote those Representatives and Senators out of office.
    These departments and agencies create the laws (Legislative Branch), they put them into effect (Executive Branch) and they find you in violation and punish you (Judicial Branch). This all is clearly a violation of the Founding Principles and removes all the checks and balances that we’re suppose to be protected by with three seperate branches of government. Seems to me that these agencies are the 4th branch of our government?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ted.madej Ted Madej

    First and foremost; The following is nothing more than MY own personal opinion.

    I’ve read several posts by this very educated lady, I have visited her site, I have read a few passages in her different links. I can see this woman clearly sides with many points of those in support of our second-amendment rights ( among other issues) I think that she stands more for the CORRECTNESS of interpretations of laws of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc., etc., I’m hoping I’m right when I state that I think she is an EXTREMELY valuable asset that we can all appreciate as to her abilty to decipher the laws which I ( and I think many other readers of THIS site ) do not really comprehend.

    It’s astonishing to know, how much you DON’T know, I only wish everybody could understand the “legalese which Lawyers use in making their point. I truly believe our country would NOT be in our current predicament if our fore-fathers and ALL their following lawmakers spoke in a clear easy to interpret everyday laymens language. …… (ie.)
    Black is Black, White is White, this is wrong this is right !

    • http://www.facebook.com/jefferylamar Jeffery Lamar Stewart

      Ted the beginning of your last paragraph reminded me of a saying or quote I once read that I find to be more true by the day. I cannot remember the exact wording but it read something like this; “The true danger does not lie in the things that you know you know or even in the things that you know you don’t know, the true danger danger lies in what you don’t know you don’t know. Thank you Publius you are a true Patriot.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ted.madej Ted Madej

      You’ve got it right Jeff, when I started to really get involved with this 2nd Amendment issue, the more I read, the more ignorant I felt. I’ve also learned its MUCH easier to learn something if you have an overbearing ,insatiable desire to
      research many places for different views. Later my friend.

    • galen_b

      As in “our second-amendment rights”?

      Wouldn’t it be more correct to refer to them as our unalienable Right to Bear Arms, enumerated by the 2nd amendment?

      Maryland’s bill SB281 gun ban begins with “Altering the authorization”
      Why wouldn’t this be more properly worded “Altering the restrictions”

  • shootist MP

    The 14th amendment, combined with the Commerce Clause and Federal Taxing authority, allows Congress to do anything. If you haven’t figured that out, you aren’t thinking.

    Lacking an amendment to curtail any or all of the above; Federalism becomes meaningless and all power becomes centralized in Washington, DC. (hint: neither GOP-e, or democrat will ever change this fact. They like it because it lines their pockets).

    No bellyaching, on your part, can do anything to change that. Either control 3/5 of the State legislatures and 2/3 of Congress so you can successfully pass a Constitutional Amendment or emigrate to a freer society.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Publius-Huldah/100000104874733 Publius Huldah

      OK, you are right, let’s all show how cynical we are and just ….. give up.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gordan.runyan Gordan Runyan

      I have awarded you 12 extra points for the unexpected and completely appropriate Harry Potter reference.