Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part I

      9 Comments on Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part I

Ms. Publius Huldah

Subtitle – Enemies. From the Introduction, Publius Huldah gave a lecture on October 29th in which she outlined her opposition to an Article V Convention of the States to propose amendments to our beloved Constitution. A link at the Introduction will take you to a YouTube hosted by the aptly named Patriot Coalition Against All Enemies. Over a fifty-minute span, followed by a Q&A, Ms. Huldah explains why she regards COS and Article V supporters not as misinformed, but rather, as conspiratorial enemies.

Publius Huldah. She opened her speech with “The con-con lobby wants to get rid of our Constitution and impose a new one.” She touched on the two amending processes in Article V and how the Constitution had been amended twenty-seven times by the first method, that of congressionally initiated amendments. COS views the Constitution as the problem, and have been pushing for a convention for decades. As evidence, Ms. Huldah presented the Ford Foundation’s fifty-year-old New Constitution for the States of America. Way back then, real conservatives stopped this new constitution in its tracks. To trick America, her enemies at COS recently donned conservative garb and changed their tactics to reintroduce it. Hence, the con.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. The first task in fighting enemies is to de-humanize them. During WWII, the US didn’t fight Japanese or Germans; we fought Japs and Krauts. In a similar fashion, Ms. Huldah uses “con-con lobby” to negatively portray her perceived enemy, the COS. COS and its thousands of volunteers are not misinformed patriots; they are the worst sort of enemy a nation can face, an enemy within. Through assertion alone, without substantive evidence, Ms. Huldah connects COS to wicked groups intent on the annihilation of free government.

What of this New Constitution for the States of America? A nut-burger marginal group of academic elites would destroy existing states, create new ones, and advance certain rights and powers to them and the people. The New Constitution for the States of America replaces the Lockean compact of society made real in our existing Constitution with an authoritarian horror dressed in confederal drag. It inverts the powers granted/powers reserved foundation of our Constitution.

Thus, begins the conspiracy, of which she claims COS is a part. Through an Article V convention, Ms. Huldah believes COS will submit the Ford Foundation plan. Later in her speech, she describes how the New Constitution for the States of America will be made a reality. To Ms. Huldah, the COS and its volunteers pose a greater threat than any foreign military force ever did, or could.

Publius Huldah. After a review of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, Ms. Huldah became visibly upset. Since the purpose of the Constitution is to secure our God-given rights, if we only obeyed the Constitution, usurpation of our rights would be impossible. Refusal to follow “our constitution, along with the collapse of religion, morality and personal responsibility has brought us to the brink of destruction.” State governments collaborate with the usurpation of enumerated powers by taking federal funds to implement unconstitutional programs.

“To claim that these problems can be fixed by amending our constitution is like saying a wicked nation can be fixed by revising the Ten Commandments.” Our Constitution is a miracle.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Perhaps few love their country more than Ms. Huldah. She was on the verge of tears at the thought of what our nation has become due to wholesale disregard of the Constitution.

Yet, the disregard she cites is more complex than she relates. Some clauses of the Constitution are observed, while most are not. Those in force are those that established the three branches, elections, Washington DC as the seat of government, presidential vetoes, etc. I regard these as ‘hard’ clauses, those that are observed and unabused.

On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are ‘soft’ in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.

On closer inspection, we’ll find that hard Constitutional clauses have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category and be soon disregarded as Ms. Huldah relates.

To keep the entirety of our Constitution in force requires institutions designed for the continued defense of hard clauses and renewed defense of soft clauses. For instance, the scotus’ infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn opinion regarding interstate commerce did enormous and continuing damage to state sovereignty. Despite the clear wording of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, Wickard or a similar ruling was an eventual certainty since the states had not been in the senate to defend their interests since 1913. A senate of the states had previously ensured the commerce clause remained in the hard clause category. The 17th Amendment doomed many previously hard clauses into soft clause irrelevance. There are other examples. To the extent that the Second Amendment is intact is not due to its enumeration in the Bill of Rights. The 2A remains in force due to attentive citizen groups who stand ready to render electoral hell on politicians who waver on this fundamental right.

It is only by making power a check on power that liberty may be protected from the ravages of time. The Framers’ divided power design of 1787, and most notably, a senate appointed by state legislatures provided a structure of government in which the natural interests of each institution, taken in their entirety, tended toward enforcement of the Constitution. As opposed to Ms. Huldah, I agree with the Framers that the security of our liberty relies more on the structure of our governing institutions than the public virtue of elected officials.

Next, Ms. Huldah set the Constitution in equality with the laws of Nature’s God when she compared its majesty to that of The Ten Commandments. This is a surprising and dangerous error which I cannot let pass, because there are people more than ready to regard government and its statutes and regulations as the highest law.  Gulags are only possible when men view themselves as the highest lawgiver. To consider the Constitution as perfection on earth is to grant it attributes never dreamed of by its authors. Which Constitution is the miracle, the original, or the one amended twenty-seven times? If it was perfection on earth, why did the Framers provide the amending processes in Article V?

No one, Article V opponents included, questions the necessity of maintenance, of eternal vigilance, in the context of keeping and repairing our homes, cars, families, and souls. I’m not aware of any earthly creation of man that isn’t subject to wear and tear. Why then, do Article V opponents assume that words on paper alone are self-enforcing? Other societies have dealt with corruption of their governing systems. Here, Niccolo’ Machiavelli examines corruption of the Roman Republic.

Publius Huldah. The con-con lobby says amendments can limit the power and jurisdiction of government, but since our Constitution already limits power to those few and defined powers, it is absurd to claim that we can control those who ignore the Constitution by amending it.

Ms. Huldah’s next targets are conspirators Michael Farris and Mark Levin. Farris penned a Parental Rights Amendment, amendment which delegates power over children to the government. Section Three of his suggested amendment states:

“Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

Federal courts, the same institution that found abortion rights in the 14th Amendment, are certain to twist Section Three into federal dominance over American families.

“Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments also do the opposite of what he claims.” His amendment to limit bureaucracy legalizes illegal federal agencies. All those agencies remain if congress authorizes them. Levin’s amendment to limit spending “is also phony.” It legalizes spending on that which congress may not spend. Central to her speech, and repeated many times, is the limitation of the legislative power to congress, and the extent of those lawmaking powers as per Article I § 8. Like much of the rest of the Constitution, they are ignored.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. This part of her speech further eroded my respect for Ms. Huldah. It reinforced my perception that her arguments begin with the assumption that COS supporters are conspiratorial enemies of free government. Since enemies seek our demise, whatever her enemies propose must be evil and turned back. She justifies an assault on two patriots from a distortion of their proposals. The propriety of their suggested amendments, like any other recommended amendments, should be closely examined. If they cannot withstand scrutiny by a committee at a convention of states, so be it.

There is no evidence whatsoever in Farris’ proposal of an insidious plot to turn our children over to the government. It seeks to accomplish the opposite of what Ms. Huldah fears. To oppose it based on what scotus social justice warriors might do is to deny self-government to We the People. There isn’t a privilege or power on this earth that cannot be misused. God gave us free will. Slander and libel are abuses of the first amendment, yet do not constitute sufficient reasons to abridge freedom of speech and the press. By her own admission, the problem isn’t the amendment, it is scotus, and scotus is a problem that Mark Levin addresses in Chapter Four of his Liberty Amendments.

In “An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Override,” Mark recommends twelve-year term limits for supreme court justices.  A little-known problem with life-long judicial appointments isn’t just a tendency to assume god-like powers. Like anyone else, judges are sometimes subject to weakened mental faculties in old age. In fact, as Mark reviewed in his Men in Black – How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, plenty of judges remained on the bench when they clearly suffered from early dementia. Mark’s amendment is a fine starting point to deal with judges that soon abuse their office, or remain beyond their capacity to properly serve.

Second, his proposed amendment grants a three-fifths override of scotus opinions to the House of Representatives and state legislatures. THIS, when the states act in Constitutional concert, is the proper means to nullify horrid scotus decisions in the American Republic. Single state nullification of statutes, regulations, and scotus opinions is a path to national destruction, which I will address in more detail in the last post to this series.

Without touching on the bulk of Levin’s amendments that re-federalize, if not super-federalize government, Ms. Huldah endlessly repeats it is absurd to claim that we can control those who ignore the Constitution by amending it. Nonsense. Levin’s proposal would remind scotus it is not supreme above We the People, and that we are so vigilant, we stand ready to judge the judges and turn back assaults on our sovereignty.

Timeline: 0:00 – 13:00 .

We are the many; our oppressors are the few. Be proactive. Be a Re-Founder. Join Convention of States. Sign the COS Petition.


9 thoughts on “Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part I

  1. cliff wilkin

    Great responses Rodney. Huldahists attempts to try selectively immortalize the constitution with comparisons to the ten commandments. This is akin to the left’s worship of the environment. Use of religious arguments are the weakest variety and attempt to make themselves holier than thou. No attempt is made to see reality, find common ground and unite against tyranny. Huldahists would prefer to be purists than to stop the status quo and further advance socialism. As you point out repeatedly Huldahists miss the true guardianship of the Republic are not words on paper but We the People. The true power of the COS Project is not to change words on paper, but to educate and build We the People and state legislators to self govern thru individual responsibility not government responsibility. As with the old testament (ten commandments) a new testament of personal responsibility was needed to empower the individual thru Grace not the paper/stone of the pharisees. Huldahists are not interested in solutions for Liberty, but are only interested in self aggrandizement.

    “Publius Huldah” (real name: Joanna Scutari) lives in Tennessee where the General Assembly flatly rejected her arguments by votes of 23-5 in the Senate and 59-31 in the House becoming the 5th state in 3 years to Pass the COS Project Resolution. Watch these COS Tennessee citizen enforcers/refounders at

    1. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

      “This is akin to the left’s worship of the environment.” Great analogy. They trust the people to send good men and women to corrupt institutions, yet deny the same people, through their sovereign capacity, to reform our institutions.

  2. MJAlexander

    Let me be gracious for a moment and acknowledge Huldah / Scutari’s fear… the practical risk of the Article V approach is that Leftists will find some way to sabotage it, rendering it moot since no Leftist proposal would ever pass muster with 38 states. In that case, we will have wasted our efforts. Big deal. We should be willing to take that chance. That risk, however, is nothing compared to the risk of maintaining the status quo, which will, with 100% certainty, lead to the country’s fiscal collapse.

    1. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

      As I wrote today, “There isn’t a privilege or power on this earth that cannot be misused. God gave us free will. Slander and libel are abuses of the first amendment, yet do not constitute sufficient reasons to abridge freedom of speech and the press. By her own admission, the problem isn’t the amendment, it is scotus, and scotus is a problem that Mark Levin addresses in Chapter Four of his Liberty Amendments.”

  3. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

    Are you familiar with Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments? They address your concerns.

  4. Sharon Correll

    I posted a couple of comments here and I see what might be responses to them but I don’t see the responses themselves. Did they get deleted?

    1. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

      Sharon, I apologize. Mea Culpa. I’ve recently been swamped in spam. In the course of deleting the fifty or so that awaited me this morning, I must have mistakenly deleted your comments. May I impose and ask you to resubmit?

      1. Sharon Correll

        Let me try and see if I can say it again….I think it is strange and ironic that people accuse COSers of being against the Constitution or “hating the Constitution.” We’re trying to use the Constitution to save the Constitution!

        I think when dealing with people who have a very high regard for the Constitution, it helps to be very specific about the specifically *constitutional* problems that would be addressed by amendments. To my way of thinking there are two: (1) the misinterpretation, over time, of key clauses that have the effect of giving the federal government much more power that was intended; this can be corrected by amendments redefining those clauses; (2) the fact that SCOTUS has so much power with virtually no recourse on the part of the People. This is a real *hole* in the Constitution, something the Framers missed because they didn’t anticipate the level of judicial activism that is present today, that can be corrected with an amendment allowing overrides.

Comments are closed.