Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part II

      5 Comments on Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part II

Ms. Publius Huldah

Subtitle – The Conspiracy Continues. (Timeline: 13:00 – 21:40. View her speech here.)

Publius Huldah. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The people are the natural guardians of the Constitution.” Hamilton expected us, the people, to differentiate between lawful exercise and illegal usurpation of power. If the power is on ‘the list,’ (Article I § 8) congress may do it, otherwise, congress may not.

She hammers Scotus for corrupting the commerce, general welfare, and necessary and proper clauses, . . . but the nation doesn’t need an Article V convention.

“Just look it up in the federalist papers for original intent,” she says.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Ms. Huldah is well-educated, which leaves me at a loss to explain her dismissal of the lessons of history, unless it is to shore up her COS conspiracy theory. She ignores what our Framers absorbed from such men as Niccolo Machiavelli’s study of the Roman Republic (Discourses on Livy), as well as The Enlightenment polemicist Algernon Sidney (Discourses Concerning Government), and the philosopher John Locke (Two Treatises of Government). These men and others warned of the natural corruption of republican governments by officeholders.

Civil society, through its Constitution, must adapt and adjust to deal with usurpations when high criminals turn institutions designed for free government into instruments of oppression. To freeze a governing form while those in government corrupt it is to invite civil war.

As Ms. Huldah describes, our executive and judicial branches usurp the legislative power, and they increasingly exercise powers not found anywhere in the Constitution at all, which is the definition of tyranny.

Being sovereign, it is not only our right, it is our duty to structure our government such that it serves the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution. Voting every two years is insufficient effort, for voting is the expression of our electoral capacity, in which we identify those who represent us in the government of our creation. What is necessary is for the same people to exercise their sovereign capacity to restructure government such that it serves its designed purposes.

The highest expression of sovereignty isn’t through our vote in congressional or presidential elections; it is through our delegates in an Article V convention. Ms. Huldah not only doesn’t differentiate between electoral and sovereign capacities, but entirely disregards our sovereign capacity as the highest earthly lawgiver, because of her perceived COS conspiracy to steal the people’s sovereignty.

Instead, Ms. Huldah advises the nation to keep the written Constitution it has, and just send better people to thoroughly corrupted institutions. Sorry, Ms. Huldah, experience has proved this tactic to be counter-productive. We must use our God-given reason and realize that sending good men and women to corrupt institutions results in corrupted men and women rather than reformed institutions.

Related posts: To Retrieve Free Government Part I, Part II.

Publius Huldah. At the Federal Convention of 1787, Virginia delegate George Mason never intended the state convention process of Article V to correct abuses of the Constitution, but strictly to correct defects in the Constitution.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Ms. Huldah spins a false narrative around George Mason’s use of the word, “defect.”  She disavows the sovereign people’s natural right to determine the framework of their governing form because George Mason urged the necessity of an amending provision to correct defects in the Constitution. Since she believes the Constitution is without defect, there is no need to propose amendments! What is worse, she purposely neglects to inform her followers that Mason supported the state amending process. Mason also said, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse on that very account.”

Publius Huldah. “Our problem today is not a defective Constitution. Our problem is disobedience of the state and federal governments,” and our Framers spelled out the remedies.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Ms. Huldah pleads once again for simplistic obedience to the Constitution. Our headlong dive into tyranny can supposedly be stopped and reversed by sending virtuous men and women to government. While the Framers and I disagree with her single reliance on public virtue, we agree that republican government cannot long serve a thoroughly debased and corrupt society. James Madison asked the Virginia Ratifying Convention, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation.”

However, Ms. Huldah glosses over a little-known, yet important facet of our early history. The federal convention of 1787 was called precisely because reliance on virtuous men in government was failing to serve the needs of the nation. Having suffered under an aggressive and abusive executive, King George III, the first state constitutions were understandably overly democratic, in which both the executive and judicial branches were tools of the legislatures. Being popularly derived, state legislatures responded to the shifting whims of the people as they imposed price controls, paper money, and favored debtors over creditors. Property was insecure. From James Madison in The Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Against this background, the Framers drafted a plan of government that thoroughly divided enumerated powers among three branches. Today, congress, especially the senate, are institutions with little purpose beyond reelection of their members. To rely even more on the democratic element as Ms. Huldah believes, is to invite certain catastrophe. What is necessary, at a minimum, is a return to the Framers’ senate of the states. As long as senators are popularly elected, no majority of them will risk bad press coverage over disagreement with social justice diktats from scotus or the executive branch.

Remove senators from the pressure of popular impulses, and free government is possible once again.

Publius Huldah. The con-con lobby believes the states will run the whole (convention) show, from controlling the appointment of their delegates, to determining the parliamentary rules of the convention, which includes one vote per state. “There isn’t a word of truth in those claims.” She relies on the “call to convention” clause in Article V to support her assertions. “States have power to ask congress to call a convention. Once that is done, it is out of the states’ hands.”

From the “call to convention” clause in Article V, Ms. Huldah believes that congress, through the Necessary and proper clause, not the states, has the right power to oversee the convention. Contrary to the deceptions from the con-con lobby, the appointment of delegates, parliamentary rules, mode of taking votes (one per state or proportionally by population) are entirely up to congress. She cites a 2014 report from the Congressional Research Service as authority. It specifies allocation of votes as per the electoral college, and leaves congress to decide who appoints delegates.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Regarding congressional control of the convention as Ms. Huldah claims, let’s look closer at the historical record. Near the close of the federal convention, George Mason convinced fellow delegates to revise Article V once again. On September 15th 1787, he was alarmed that congress would have sole power to propose amendments, and insisted on state authority to call for a convention. Mason explained that an oppressive congress would never agree to propose amendments curtailing its own tyranny.

Like Ms. Huldah, patriots recognize no congressional powers beyond those granted, and nothing in Article V grants oversight to congress beyond calling the convention, and specifying the mode of ratification. In Federalist #85, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “. . . the Congress will be obliged on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states, to call a convention for proposing amendments. . . “

In anticipation that congress may be reluctant to convene a power higher than itself, Hamilton wrote, “The words of Article V are peremptory. The Congress shall call a convention.” Despite his well-known support for a much stronger and vigorous government, Hamilton made no mention of congressional control over convention delegates or parliamentary rules.

In another implausible stretch of reason, Ms. Huldah cites the Necessary and Proper clause as the vehicle for congressional control of an Article V convention. She repeats, and rightly so, that congress has no powers beyond those granted. Yet, when it comes to Article V, she believes congress has a plethora of unenumerated powers over the state amendments convention, as if congressional oversight is ancillary to the duty of calling a convention. Neither would it be proper for the likely object of the people’s dismay to exercise any control whatsoever of their sovereign proceedings.

Clearly, the intent of the state application method is not to subject a state convention to the control of congress, but rather, just the opposite. Near the close of Federalist #85, Hamilton wrote, “We may rely on the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority,” and the ultimate barrier is appeal to the sovereign people via Article V.

Publius Huldah. Delegates to the convention serve as the sovereign representatives of the people. As sovereign representatives of the people, convention DELEGATES have the power to throw off the Constitution and impose an entirely new form of government. Furthermore, she believes the COS is deceptive when it says that three-fourths of the states must approve proposed amendments. The conspiratorial COS is therefore a partner to tyranny.

Rodney Dodsworth Response. In a subtle and dangerous sleight of hand, Ms. Huldah inverts the master/servant relationship in our compact of government. Instead of, as Ms. Huldah says, “delegates to the convention serve as the sovereign representatives of the people,” attendees will serve as delegates of the sovereign people. As delegates, they are subservient to the sovereign people and must obey their instructions as set forth in their commissions.

If congress was to have an enumerated power over delegates of We the Sovereign People, (in contravention of the Declaration of Independence) the Framers would have listed it in Article I § 8.  But they didn’t, and instead acknowledged the Natural Right of the sovereign people to alter their governing compact in a stand-alone Article V.

This distinction cannot be over-emphasized. The state amendments convention derives its independence from a separate grant of authority in the Constitution itself; it cannot be made subservient to any branch of the government. Further, the sole purpose of the convention is to propose changes in the pre-existing system of government. This renders the convention distinct from, and superior to, the three branches of government it is meant to alter.

Since congress has no powers beyond those granted, it may not dictate delegate selection; nor, as Ms. Huldah believes, may it elevate their crony delegates to the status of sovereign. Delegates to a state amendments convention act on behalf of the sovereign people, and as such, are responsible to execute their commissions as per state law. For instance, here is the Indiana statute that will define their delegates’ envelope of authority. As required in Article V, recommended amendments go to either state legislatures or state ratifying conventions for final acceptance or rejection.

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


5 thoughts on “Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part II

  1. cliff wilkin

    Fantastic chapter 2. Very hard to add anything to your analysis here. One inherent problem with the argument that Congress would take over misses the point that Congress already has the power to propose amendments. What would be the point (or the concern) of them taking over something they already can do any day of the week? Once again we are left with the only reason not to take up our constitutional responsibility as self governors is pure FEAR. Is fear what our country has relied upon for centuries now? Insanity = continue to repeat the same action and expecting a different result. Scutari => more socialism. Wouldn’t the worst thing we could tell our descendants is that we were too afraid to even try the one thing that the Founders expected us to do?

    “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

      Thanks and thanks for the retweet! As you say, if congress is in on the “con,” why haven’t the globalists already done what Huldah predicts? We probably have, at most, an eight year window to save the republic.

  2. Robyn Campbell

    Excellent, Rodney. I think her arguments are very flimsy, to say the least. Delegates are controlled by their state legislatures, so there is no sense to her argument that the delegates could throw off the Constitution.
    The Convention of States was proposed by the Founders as a method for us to regain control of our government should it ever get out of control. Uhm, we have arrived. What gets me, is how people aren’t a bit afraid of Amendment process 1 which the congress controls. The very same congress with the 8% approval rating. Wow.

  3. Norman Bobo

    Joanna Scutari is a scam artist. She sounds like she knows what she is talking about, but she can’t get past all of the conspiracy theories that rattle around in her brain. They come out at every turn. I have a VERY hard time listening to her videos on Article V. Virtually every sentence is laced with false statements, poor logic, wild theories and illogical conclusions.

    Here’s another untold story about Ms. Scutari. She was asked by a Tennessee Senator (who, unfortunately has also been sold a bill of goods on Article V) to testify in front of a House Committee on nullification. She refused to give her real name to the committee. The committee members were aghast. Makes you wonder, huh? Though there are no formal procedures for banning a speaker, the background word among the legislators on that committee is that she will never appear in front of a legislative committee ever again.

    By the way, that committee voted against using nullification — they accurately understood it to be an unconstitutional lawless approach to solving federal overreach. Most of those same lawmakers voted in 2016 to use Article V — because it is constitutional and lawful.

    1. Rodney Dodsworth Post author

      Yes, she has an irritating and sneering delivery. I’ve never heard of refusal to identify oneself to a public committee. My last or perhaps second to last post in this long series will examine nullification.

Comments are closed.