The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare

Article 1 Section 8 from Page 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Article 1 Section 8 from Page 2 of the U.S. Constitution

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 a 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.

Ted Cruz 2016


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 powers in the Act). 

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

Woodrow Wilcox


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 [o[one may well ask how any court can be "inferior” to the supreme Court]/li>
  • 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).  Madison addresses the objection 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 says one would be grasping at straws to stoop to such a silly “misconstruction”:

“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, Madison says Art. I, §1, 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 [Cla[Clauses 3-16]uded to by these general terms” [Cla[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 created by the 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 This is an evil 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[the House] and of determining … them in the … [Sen[Senate] give[s] [s]… [Con[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.  Elect Romney.  He has promised he will “repeal” obamacare.  His Oath of Office – which is “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” – requires him to refuse to implement Obamacare. By Executive Order, he must refuse to implement it, he must reverse all implementation in effect when he takes office, and he must rescind the unconstitutional rules [see[see, e.g., Art. I, §1]e by the baby-killing totalitarians who presently infect the Department of Health & Human Services.

4.  States must nullify ObamacareHere are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address 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.

5. 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.


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 sovereignty over all other objects….” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [fed[federal]ernment 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.” [bol[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 [by Congress]ong> will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; …” [bol[boldface added]

Hamilton and Madison are telling 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.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.
Publius Huldah
View all articles by Publius Huldah
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • William Mann

    Bravo Publius!
    Another “home run” article about the lawless abuse of power where you spell it out perfectly.
    There now appears to be a new Progressive Majority on the SCOTUS. Katie bar the door.
    Madison’s and Franklin’s prophecies about abusing authority, taxing, and spending have come to fruition.
    William Mann

  • Tracy Tarum

    Excellent article, and
    I agree with you in almost all points, except one HUGE oversight you are making: you are wanting to impeach judges for NOT overstepping their bounds!! (Because as I’ll address later, the first time a federal judge was ever impeached, was for “issuing a ruling contradictory to Congress.”) Anyone who understands the reason for, intent of, spirit of, and powers and limitations provided by the U.S. Constitution will necessarily and obviously understand that what we know as Obamacare is unarguably unconstitutional. That is not only advantageous, but also important to understand as a body politic; and it is our DUTY as citizens to understand the government under which we submit a portion of our liberty – for the security of our property and general welfare, for us and our immediate posterity – so that we know what rights we retain, and therefore fully possess. However, it is also equally as important to appreciate that the Supreme Court DID NOT “overturn” Obamacare for those same reasons. If we are to remain – or more aptly perhaps, return to – a nation whose immediate passions and desires are fettered by a standing documented rule of law we know as our Constitution, then it is necessary and paramount that we submit AT ALL LEVELS and in ALL SITUATIONS to that essential document.

    The reason it was good of the courts NOT to “overturn” Obamacare is that they DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER!! Yes, I understand that we now expect judges to “overturn” or “throw out” laws that we don’t like; and equally so, we are upset when they do the same to laws which we do like: however, I would like ANYONE to please tell me WHERE they find that power granted to ANY courts established by our U.S. Constitution. (And, to save time for others, I’ve included the verbiage of Article III of the Constitution – which articulates the powers of federal courts – at the end of this response, so you decide…)

    To be clear, Thomas Jefferson actually WANTED the courts to have that power, and expressed that to James Madison in a private letter, while acknowledging that they did not. As he stated; “…and I like the negative given to the Executive with a third of either house, though I should have liked it better had the Judiciary been associated for that purpose, or invested with a similar and separate power.” Th. Jefferson; to James Madison; 20 Dec, 1787 (giving his opinion on the newly proposed Constitution, while still serving the U.S. as a minister in France)

    I’m not saying that the courts SHOULDN’T have that power – as that is a debatable subject: however, I AM stating that they DO NOT have that power currently. And as I learned from David Barton, at a live event; the first time a federal judge was ever impeached, was for “issuing a ruling contradictory to Congress.” Congress is the most powerful branch of government: they’re not even “co-equal”, they’re the MOST powerful; elected directly by the people. How can the courts – the branch INTENTIONALLY made the weakest (articulated in the Federalist Papers, writings of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, etc. etc. etc.) – have such unlimited power??

    Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist #78 that;“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them…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…the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter…so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive…’there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.’(Here he quoted Montesquieu)…Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power… It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. 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, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

    This is why courts merely offer an OPINION – as you will note, every ruling is “it is the OPINION of the court…” They DO NOT possess this power to overturn. Simply because we’ve allowed them to usurp this power doesn’t make it so. It was understood that if that power was given to them it could/would be dangerous – since among other reasons, they had NO TERM LIMITS – and that’s why it was NOT given to them.

    And then, I’ll ask one simple question, based simply on logic: if it takes the POTUS and Congress – or 2/3 of both halls of Congress in the case of overriding a POTUS veto – to make a law; then how can a simple majority of a third branch – the weakest branch – overturn that which neither of the other two branches can overturn by themselves? Or put another way: how does it take concurrence of two branches of government to MAKE a law – which is actually three departments, both branches of Congress and the POTUS – or a super-majority of both houses of one branch to MAKE a law; but only a simple majority of the explicitly, logically, and necessarily weakest branch to REMOVE a law; when neither Congress nor the POTUS can repeal a law individually? If we are to all agree to the intelligence, enlightenment, integrity, and foresight of our Founders; then how can we assume that – regardless of the countless writings, debates, and opinions to the contrary – they “slipped” on this highly important issue, and somehow empowered the courts with this mythical power, which necessarily and logically becomes tyrannical?

    I will concede that the exact power of the courts is VERY murky…but they DO NOT have an exclusive and/or obvious – let alone even SUPPOSED– power to overturn law; and that there were DEFINITELY debates as to the proper role of the courts; but that the power to overturn was NEVER given to ANY court: it is a usurped power. And if we want them to have that power, then we must ARTICULATE that power. But if we do not, then it’s subjective, and an inconsistently applied USURPED power…and that IS NOT a sign of a strong/virtuous/moral government. It is the sign of a government that is still open to further corruption and venality through intentional misinterpretations which serve the purposes of those who hold the power of coercion, not those subjected to the power of coercion.

    As promised, here is the verbiage of Art. III of the U.S. constitution…
    Article III – The Judicial Branch
    Section 1 – Judicial powers
    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
    Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
    (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Section 3 – Treason
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    • Publius Huldah

      Tracy Tarum:

      You don’t know what you are talking about.

      Furthermore, whether you “agree” or “disagree” is irrelevant. What is relevant is the genuine meaning of The Constitution, which is best explained by The Federalist Papers.

      You don’t understand the mandates of the Oath of Office, and you don’t understand the basic concept of “checks & balances”:

      The Oath of Office (Art VI, cl. 3; and Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) requires everyone in the federal government to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION, not to go along with the other branches of the federal government. That Oath requires that all who take it swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution. People in the federal government do not take an Oath to obey, or to go along with, the other branches.

      Out of this Oath of Office arises the duty to strike down acts of the other branches which violate the Constitution:

      The federal courts’ “Check” on Congress is to hold their laws unconstitutional.

      Congress’ “Check” on the federal courts is to impeach judges who usurp powers (see Federalist No. 81, 8th para, to which I link in my above paper)

      The President’s “Check” on Congress is to refuse to implement Acts of Congress which violate the Constitution. His Oath demands that he do this. READ the paper to which I link where I explain in the paper above how a President Romney has the duty – IMPOSED BY HIS OATH OF OFFICE – to refuse to implement obamacare.

      Congress’ “Check” on the President is to impeach him. And they can impeach him for usurpations of power (See: Federalist No. 66, 2nd para; and No. 77, last para).

      And so it goes.

      You are just cutting & pasting and regurgitating stuff you found somewhere and don’t understand. It is immoral for people to pontificate on matters of which they are ignorant.

      It is also noted that you are restating, in your own very clumsy manner, the position obama took where he said the supreme court has no power to strike down Acts of Congress.

      • dr. theo

        Thank you, Publius. I am woefully ignorant of most of these legal and constitutional arguments, but each of your articles helps educate me tremendously. As I learn more I am utterly amazed at the insight and wisdom of our Founders. Do such men live in these times?

  • JRRjr

    The 26 State ObamaTax lawsuit can appeal. They have 30 days, in which to to so. The oppurtunity would create a balance in determining whether impeachment is at all necessary. Bring them all to the true law, the Constitution. The majority erred. Who else will? It’s obvious the Congress cannot be relied upon except for political theater. Even if they do repeal the bill they jeapordize their chances of election. By bringing forward the appeal they can slow the wheels of decision. A calming toward a better understanding should enhance the political debate, if the course becomes mired. Only the House at present has the votes to repeal. The Senate may become grid-locked. The Court most likely would not decide the appeal until they return from recess. They must appeal to insure the balance of free and open debate and judgement. If they do not, they also are in contempt of the Constitution and their oaths. Forward the complaint and forward the truth.

    • Publius Huldah

      The States just had the appeal. They lost. The United States supreme Court upheld obamacare. What you are saying about appellate procedure is not correct.

      It is now squarely in the hands of the People. They need to send to Congress people who will repeal obamacare, and then impeach & remove the 5 lawless supreme Court judges.

      Meanwhile, the States can nullify obamacare.

      It is important that The People have accurate information!

  • Dave

    John Adams feared there would be those who would twist the constitution for their own purpose; feared there would be those who would not use the original intent & meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

    Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
    wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    And he was right, because we have a whole truckload of lying, immoral, and unethical trash in DC

    • Sapient1


      There is a necessary corollary to having a “whole truckload of lying, immoral, and unethical trash in DC,” and being a government of the people.

      Noah Webster didn’t pull punches:

      “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of our republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office – the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.”

      Pretty well sums up the issues of our day.

      God bless

      • Publius Huldah

        That is a knife in the heart, Oh, Wise One.

        That’s one reason I love Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, and use it almost every day.

        • Sapient1

          Hi PH my good friend…

          Indeed…it breaks my heart as well..

          When Adams said ““Our Constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other…” he was talking about US…We the People…the governed.

          Who can miss the words “ONLY.” and “any other…”? It will only work with that kind of people.

          Some say we need to recapture the spirit of the Revolution, etc….I say, “Before we ask, lets make sure we know what we are asking:”

          “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” –John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

          He was talking about nothing less than the First Great Awakening….that is what made us the kind of people who could be governed by the Constitution.

          So, its a very real question is—do we REALLY want to be a people that can be governed by our Constitution, or not?

          God bless

          “Posterity – you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom… I hope you will make good use of it.” –John Adams

          • Spenserr

            It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

            Don’t those who govern come from We the People?

  • fiverrules

    Is not the verbage clear in that congress has the power to levy taxes to PROVIDE (implying by definition a direct relationship) for general welfare, defense, pay debt etc ? If Obama care was not constitutional under authority to PROMOTE general welfare and regulate commerce, any chance to ask for reconsideration of decision based on non-provisional punitive only tax status (as supported by obama administration and congressional claims that obamatax is not a tax but a penalty after ruling) of mandate penalty?

    • Sapient1

      Five rules
      Great question…and Madison answered it:

      James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said, “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of
      powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a
      literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a
      character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators.
      I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which
      granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money
      of their constituents.”

      “If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole
      and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion
      into their own hands; they may take into their own hands the education of
      children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may
      undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” –James Madison, in a speech delivered to the First U. S. Congress –Source: Thomas James Norton ‘Undermining
      the Constitution; A History of Lawless Government’ (New York; Devin-Adair
      Company 1950)

      The term General Welfare is a further restriction on the enumerated powers–ie “if you exercise any of these it must be for the general welfare. This is a restriction.

      Of, you may take the enumerated powers as an exposition on the term “general welfare.”

      Either way you go, it is that “general welfare” is not a “aw-shucks” moment in the otherwise genius of our founders and an open door for tyranny.

      God bless

    • Publius Huldah

      We lost at the supreme Court. We must move on and look to other remedies.

      Don’t spin your wheels pondering the distinctions between “provide” and “promote”:

      The true constitutional issue is whether medical care is one of the “enumerated powers” of Congress. The answer is “NO!”

  • churchvictory

    Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to Him, “Teacher, what
    shall we do?” And He said to them, “Collect no more than you are
    authorized to do.” -Luke 3:12-13

  • davidfarrar

    But Publius Huldah,

    Nothing is unconstitutional until a majority of the Senate says it is; am I right?

    ex animo

    • Publius Huldah

      David, I always go to The Federalist Papers or our beloved Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, for Answers:

      I quote from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions in footnote 3 above. Note that Jefferson says that when “the General Government [federal government] assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force..”

      Jefferson is saying that when Congress makes a law which is outside the scope of its enumerated powers, it is no “law” at all, but is void; and we have no obligation to comply.

      Alexander Hamilton says this over and over in The Federalist Papers. Here are a few examples:

      “…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must
      appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to
      redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest
      and prudence justify…” (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). [boldface added]

      “…acts of … [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its
      constitutional powers … will [not] become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such…” (Federalist No. 33, 6th para). [boldface added]

      “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act …contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men … may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” (Federalist No. 78, 10th para). [boldface added]
      Do you see? There is much more – you can find it throughout my papers. The bottom line is that our Framers expected us to be enlightened enough to be able to distinguish between a lawful exercise of power and an unlawful usurpation; and gutsy enough to refuse to go along with the usurpations.

      But we have been cowed for so long that we don’t want to take responsibility – we want someone else to decide. So we want to “file lawsuits” so that WE can shove the responsibility on to others – federal judges who lust for power over us.

      If our country were filled with People who KNEW our founding documents, they would laugh at the prospect of complying with such a monstrously unconstitutional abomination as obamacare.

      What is most frightening is not that obamacare was passed, and SCOTUS approved it; but that The People don’t understand that they – and their States – can and MUST REFUSE TO SUBMIT.

      Those of us, like LTC. William Mann, who have spent some years in communist countries well know what is ahead for America unless we resist this with everything in us.
      Today, we are wimps who want to shove the decisions onto the Courts so that WE don’t have to stand up for Our Constitution.

      • Sapient1

        Right you are and ours is a particular cowardice…

        “There exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness . . . we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. “ –George Washington First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

      • davidfarrar

        Resist! By all means and measure resist. You can even replace the Senate if you would like. But it isn’t unconstitutional until the Senate says it is; unless I am missing something.

        ex animo

        • Publius Huldah

          Why do you believe that the Senate (!) is the final authority on whether a law is Unconstitutional? Read the Jefferson quote in the footnote above (from the Kentucky Resolutions). How can you believe the Senate is the sole judge of the powers of Congress?
          Alexander Hamilton says WE are. He expects us to learn our Constitution and then to do whatever the exigency requires & prudence justifies when the federal government usurps powers. I quote that para all the time.

          • davidfarrar

            But who or what is the enforcement mechanism? Ultimately, if the President defies the US Supreme Court, who is the only one who can defy the US Supreme Court, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, or something like that.

            ex animo

            • Publius Huldah

              WE THE PEOPLE are the enforcers. That’s what Hamilton tells us over & over. WE are the ones who are supposed to be enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. WE are the ones who are supposed to vote out the representatives who violate the Constitution. But our People are too ignorant of our Founding Principles to do their Duty; plus, they want the unconstitutional handouts (social security, medicare, taxpayer funded pensions, etc.) I am trying to teach them our Founding Principles and the immorality of seeking to live at other peoples’ expense.
              Our People sold their birthright for a bowl of porridge. But if they repent; if they are willing to learn our founding principles; if they are willing to take up responsibility for their own own lives; then perhaps we can turn this around! States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government. But they won’t b/c they don’t want to lose their federal funding. See? We The People are so morally blind that we elect to our State Houses legislators who can be bribed with our grand childrens’ money. WE are the Problem. WE are the solution. But repentance must come first.

              • davidfarrar

                Tell me Publius…and I don’t know very much about you or your political activities; but has any of this motivated you enough to spend $100 to buy ten yards signs with something like:

                RISE UP
                JOIN THE
                TEA PARTY
                (with your Tea Party email address written below),

                and plant them in and around your immediate neighborhood?

                ex animo

            • Publius Huldah

              We elect to Congress & the Senate people who will impeach & convict usurping federal judges. If they don’t do it, we vote them out in the next election, and replace them will people who will impeach & convict. Meanwhile States can nullify obamacare, along with any other act of any branch of the federal government which is an usurpation of power.
              WE are the ones who failed. We cast our votes on the basis of “name recognition”!

  • Sapient1


    I know of little that is sadder, than the sound of my country men, still free men, hailing as liberator the one who has fastened the shackles upon them, assuming he will return to remove them later.

    God bless

    “A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.
    Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. ~Thomas Paine, Rights of Man [1791-1792].

  • Bettiann Rinderle Davis

    Thank you for such an important and INFORMATIVE article. I have a clearer view as to what has taken place with this DESPICABLE vote than just relying on what is being passed around with personal interpretations of Our precious Law Of The Land!
    I find it TREASONOUS for ANYONE in Office to dictate, write, or pass Laws and try to ‘refine’ or misinterpret the US Constitution to deliberately deceive the American People!!! I understood that Justices of the Supreme Court could be impeached, but was not sure HOW! I hope everyone passes this around to everyone they know, so in this next Election, People actually KNOW what they are voting for!

    On another NOTE:
    In reading this article also, is the Reference to ‘The Law of Nations’- Article I Sect. 8 Clause 10.
    Over the last few years, when researching the natural born citizen argument, I have read some of Vittal’s Law of Nations- looking for answers.
    Anyone who says the Constitution does not define a ‘natural born citizen’…think this might be the TIES THAT BIND? After all, with this REFERENCE: “Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;”- and researching in The Law of NATIONS IS where you find the clear and distinctive definition- it appears to me that is the deciding factor, once a for all. Keep in mind, too, Justices of The Court, in their rulings on the subject in the past, have made references to ‘The Law of Nations’ and the ‘original intent’ of the Founders, but I’ve heard some say- The Law of Nations isn’t in the US Constitution. With this reference- it’s right there in black and white… I don’t see how there is any question…but that’s just me!
    I find it more remarkable, that the LONG LOST LIBRARY BOOK, a couple years ago, in the
    basement of George Washington’s mansion, was indeed, VIttal’s Law of
    Nations, and more recently, found in the same basement- George Washington’s PERSONAL copy of the US Constitution, with his hand written notes in the margins. I find it more than coincidence…and it angers me that The People, The Congress are ready to push this REQUIREMENT to be President, under the rug!
    Just another issue of OUR ELECTED ignoring OUR LAWS. We .cannot expect our elected to adhere to The Laws if we don’t understand them ourselves. How could WE ever enforce something WE know nothing about?

    • Publius Huldah

      My dear, my next paper is on this. I am now in the final editing, cutting, shortening, and polishing stage.

    • YCNAN


  • retiredday

    Thank you, Publius, for another outstanding constitutional analysis. As for Tracy Tartum’s comment, it simply lacks good sense. If the mere “opinion” of the court describes a law as unconstitutional, then the law must be rescinded. But on a broader level, politics and the media have created much obfuscation about the meaning of the constitution, and many people are ignorant about this very basic document. Our present government has migrated a long way from our founders’ intentions. It’s not too late to return home to those “transcendent Principles” but it’s going to take a lot of work. It is no longer safe for the public to be satisfied with their own ignorance. Those who trust the illegitimate, lawless members of our government are destined to become victims, as free American citizens are reduced to slaves of socialism.

  • WXRGina

    Thank you, Ms. Publius. Your lessons are priceless!

  • Gregory Johnson

    Romney and Obama both work for the same people. “We the People” need to remove the two party wool that has been pulled over our eyes and look for the “Good” candidate, not the Lessor of 2 evils. We need to restore the Constitution. Do not vote for Obama OR Romney. Your vote DOES count!!!

    • Publius Huldah

      Well, yes, I suppose you can pick up your toys and go home. Cut off our noses to spite our faces. GET EVEN with America for rejecting your candidate. See if obama buddy Bill Ayers was really serious when he & the Weather Underground planned how to kill 25,000,000 Americans; find out what Anita Dunn really meant when she said that Mao of Red China was one of her heroes; give George Soros another chance to participate in mass exterminations.

      Or, we can vote for the candidate under whom this will not happen. We may well not return to a constitutional republic under Romney, but we will live to fight another day; and we will get 4 more years to turn the lights on in the heads of the American People.

  • Sonny Farmer

    I’ve been looking forward to your thoughts on Roberts’s and the SCOTUS’s recent ruling… it sounds like you are just as disgusted as the rest of us….

    “5. 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.”

    Ouch, you’re not holding much back, I see. And also. I’m with you on impeaching judges, but Republicans don’t seem to have the guts nor the will to do the tough things in Washington. It appears that the principles of federalism are gone from the Republicans and so-called conservative judges. And in doing so, our federal government is no longer a “federal” government, but rather a more national government. Well anyways. I’ll send you my blog that I’ve been pushing around the Tea Party groups. Great piece again, and I please keep on writing. I can’t wait until your next one.

    • Publius Huldah

      Yes, Sonny Farmer, you are correct on every point.

      Dr. Walter E. Williams sat in for Rush today. Williams spoke of the Courage of our Founding Generation – how they took on the most powerful nation in the world!

      But today, we are such gutless wimps & wusses, we don’t even have the spine to NULLIFY unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Besides, what would the States do if the federal government retaliated by …..[prepare yourself for a horror] …. cutting off their federal funds?

      Yes! Dr. Williams said today, that the States should nullify obamacare.

  • Righting Our Consent

    Thanks PH
    Americans have enjoyed living beyond our means, placing too much importance on our possessions not enough on the real threat of assumed power. In so doing, we have allowed immoral leaders to promise us “the moon” and we’ve given them far too much leeway to encroach upon our liberty. Despite all the overspending, all we really have in exchange is an illusion of greatness. Reality will pop that bubble eventually. Our greatness is now an inverted mountain of debt that can no longer be controlled. The debt spiral is directly correlating to the death spiral of our nation. Evidently the great master minds have determined that there is no alternative other than lying to us and allowing their global jihad for world socialism to proceed –and it appears they have installed people to make sure it will. We see it in their attitudes– they believe we should be serving and obeying them and they do not believe they are there to serve us. To them, our constitution, our constituted government is merely an obsolete constraint that can and will be wedged away from us over time, in incremental steps of usurping beyond their delegated powers. Getting people to realize this with a deliberately subversive public education system and the propagandizing by our medias is the big challenge.
    Keep up the great work of opening our eyes!

  • Dave

    I realize that our elected officials and judges enjoy immunity from civil prosecution as long as they are acting within the scope of there official responsibilities. However, could it be argued that this protection does not exist when they violate the oath of office they were all required to take as a condition of their employment?