Who is Publius?

Who is “Publius Huldah“?


“Publius Huldah” (AKA Joanna Ruth Martin) is a Florida lawyer. She has a degree from the Florida State University College of Law and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1973, #168769 (SOURCE). In 1974, she was an Army JAG lawyer in Florida, Captain Joanna R. Martin (SOURCE).

In 1982-84, she was an assistant attorney general in Tallahassee, Florida. In 1986-87, she was an attorney with Harris & Martin in Stuart, FL. This information is available by running a Google search on her maiden name, Joanna R. Martin. She is 70 years old and apparently is (or was) married to Frank Scutari of Martin Co. FL.

Scutari was arrested in 1985 on federal accessory charges to an armed car robbery in San Francisco. (SOURCE) According to the book, Terrorism in America, Frank Scutari pleaded a 3-year sentence. It lists his age as 40 in 1985. That makes him 70 now, which is the same age as one Frank Scutari of Moss, TN. Frank’s brother Richard pleaded a 60-year sentence. Joanna Martin also lived in Martin Co. and Port Salerno, FL in the mid 1980s. Scutari’s address in the articles below is 4818 Grouper Av, Port Salerno, FL. A search of that address found:

  • Frank Scutari: F J Scutari; Frank J Scutari
  • Listings (Early 70s): Moss, TN; Stuart, FL; Port Salerno, FL
  • Family: Amy Alicia Scutari; Bret Harding Scutari; Fred Joseph Scutari; Jennifer C Scutari; Kelly C Hannouche

Notice the middle initial J, same as Frank J. Scutari of Moss, TN. Also notice the Moss, TN and Stuart, FL cities (same as Joanna Martin), as well as the name Bret Scutari (Joanna’s son).

Here is Joanna Martin’s listing for Port Salerno, FL:

  • Joanna R Martin: Joanna Ruth Martin; Joanne Martin; Joanne R Martin; Joanna Scutari; Joanne Scutari
  • Listings (Early 70s): Moss, TN; Tallahassee, FL; Port Salerno, FL; North Palm Beach, FL; Stuart, FL; Jupiter, FL

Here is Joanna Scutari’s listing for Port Salerno, FL:

  • Joanna Scutari: Joanne Scutari; Joanna R Martin
  • Listings: Moss, TN

Conclusion: Frank Scutari mentioned in Terrorism in America is married to Joanna Scutari, AKA “Publius Huldah.”


Source Documents: 


(Ballotpedia) “Publius Huldah” (HERE)

(Palm Beach Post–Feb. 21, 1985) “Ex-Martin High Teacher’s Arrest Shocks Officials” (HERE) Cont. (HERE) Cont. (HERE)

(Spokane Chronicle–Feb. 21, 1985) “Contractor Held in neo-Nazi Plot” (HERE)

(The Silent Brotherhood: Inside America’s Racist Underground) Frank Scutari in “Epilogue: Blood Will Flow” (HERE)

(Sun Sentinel–Mar. 6, 1985) “Neo-Nazi Case Suspect Freed” (HERE)

(Associated Press Archive–Apr. 10, 1985) “Today’s Focus: Violent Neo-Nazi Group Apparently Smashed” (HERE)

(Palm Beach Post–May 2, 1986) “Scutari Stymies Murder Investigation” (HERE)

(Palm Beach Post–Oct. 5, 1985) “Hospital Considers Recompression Chamber” (HERE)

(Terrorism in America: Pipe Bombs and Pipe Dreams, Smith) Full PDF (HERE)

42 thoughts on “Who is Publius?

  1. Other than publishing someone’s personal information, what was the actual point of all this?

    If it is important for us to know who Publius Huldah is and something she was never involved in 30 years ago, then surely it is just as important to know who the anonymous person(s) writing and publishing this is now.

    After linking to this site, Mark Meckler wrote that generally people who have something to hide prefer anonymity. Does “Birch Watcher” have something to hide?

    I wonder if my comment will be quickly deleted or allowed to stand and be answered… Time will soon tell.

    “Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown.” ~George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796

    Liked by 3 people

    • “If it is important for us to know who Publius Huldah is and something she was never involved in 30 years ago, then surely it is just as important to know who the anonymous person(s) writing and publishing this is now.”

      It is equally important to know who “Blue Tail Gadfly” is. I frequently post on blogs and I ALWAYS identify myself with my real name. I do that for three reasons. 1. I am proud of who I am. 2. I’m not afraid to stand behind what I say. 3. Anyone, including you and “Publius Huldah” should be ashamed for hiding behind a pseudonym.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Curtis

        Re: “I frequently post on blogs and I ALWAYS identify myself with my real name.”

        Good for you! But that doesn’t make what you write correct, just as using a pseudonym doesn’t make Publius Huldah or I incorrect. So in the end, what difference does it make?

        Re: “Anyone, including you and “Publius Huldah” should be ashamed for hiding behind a pseudonym.”

        Though not directly, I am glad to read that you are at least condemning this anonymous blog as well. Personally, I don’t care who is operating this blog or writing the articles. What they publish is either correct or incorrect, relevant or irrelevant, moral or immoral.

        As I originally posted, it is Mark Meckler who asserted that generally people who have something to hide prefer anonymity and linked to this site to discredit Publius Huldah. I found it rather ironic that he makes that charge while linking to a anonymous site.

        Out of curiosity, do you feel that the Founding Fathers who used pseudonyms should be ashamed as well? or are there exceptions to the rule?

        ~BTG

        Liked by 2 people

      • BTG, I am unable to reply to your post. Please identify yourself and I will be glad to continue our discussion. You know who I am. I have no idea who you are.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Blue Tail Gadfly, I fully expected that you would not have the guts to post your true identity. Your silence confirms my expectations. You and Publius Huldah are certainly birds of a feather. I don’t know of any serious advocate of Article V who hides behind a pseudonym like the two of you.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. To Blue Tail Gadfly,

    Hiding behind an alias is no different than lying to your friends. As for Publius Huldah or Joanna Scutari, the problem with her is she is pretending to be something she is not, a Constitutional Scholar. She is pretending her Law Degree is in Constitutional LAW and it is not. She continually makes false claims by using misdirected quotes from the Founders notes, letters and documents. She claims that James Madison was against the second part of Article V for the States to apply for an Amending Convention, Which is a lie. She miss leads people into thinking that James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in their writings for the Federalist Papers were against the States using the Fifth Article of the new Constitution which is not the truth. Ask yourself why did James Madison and Alexander Hamilton write the articles in the Federalist Papers. You and I both know it was to persuade the public to vote for the new Constitution, with that knowledge why would they ever say anything derogatory about any part of the new Constitution. They wouldn’t, you know it as well as I do.

    She constantly tries to miss direct people into thinking that an Article V Convention of the States is a Con Con or a Constitutional Convention when it is NOT. The Founders new this and they new difference. All one has to do is Look at the very first applications for an Article V form Virginia where they refer to it as A Convention of the States for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Article V and the Constitution does not allow for re-writing or for writing a new Constitution, only for proposing amendments. The Founders new the difference and always referred to the difference. for instance the Letter she is so fond of referencing, You know the one to George Turberville Nov. 2nd. 1788, you must first know what was going on at the time in the country, the Anti Federalist like Publius Huldah was against the new document and wanted more articles written in for the rights of the people or to protect the people. They were clamoring for a second General Convention or a Second Constitutional Convention. Of course James Madison was against a Second Constitutional Convention, he know how difficult it was to get through the first one. That is what the Letter is all about, it had nothing to do with Article V of the new Constitution. So the Founders knew the difference between An Amending Convention of the States and A Constitutional Convention. This last century the Left Ted Kennedy started this nonsense of a Constitutional Convention for he knew it had such high negative connotations. And he knew the people would not know the difference between the two so he and left started all of this confusion. Black legal law dic. only came along in the 20 century and took on the populace translation and did not research the actual precedence. So it is time to correct it so people can and will know there is a huge difference.

    She constantly claims the founding fathers and author’s of the Constitution were not assigned to write a new document, one that would take the place of the Articles of Confederation. To say this is to say these men were not men of honor, she is saying they lied to the American people and the Confederation Congress and they be-trade the trust of their state governments and the people that sent them to Philadelphia in 1787. The is so not true, for 10 states sent their commissioners to the Convention with instruction to make what ever changes were needed to render the Constitution usable as a document to run a country with. (My words)

    She also claims the 13th. article of the Articles of Confederation was not amended legally, which is another miss representation. All you have to do is look at the history and documents and you will see at the end of the Convention of 1787 a letter was drafted to the Congress requesting them to approve the new document and the proposed amendment to the 13th. article of the Articles of Confederation, and if they approved send the changes to the States for ratification.

    The Congress reviewed the changes and approved and sent them to the States for ratification with two instructions, one first the legislatures of each state must approve of the amendment to the 13th. Article then if they all approve they are to hold States Conventions to vote on the new Document. ALL thirteen states approve of the amendment to the Articles of Confederation the proof is in history for they all called State Conventions to Vote either up or down for the new Constitution. Every State called a State Convention. By the end of July 1788 11 states had approved the new document, 2 states were hold outs , and voted against the new document, because they did not feel the people were represented with safe guards in the new document, ie the reason for the Bill of Wrights. Once the Bill of Wrights were introduced for the States approval the last two states held a second State Convention and approved the new document. She fails to even talk of this in her writings or speeches all she wants to make people believe is the New Constitution was written bay a Run-A-Way Convention and it was not adopted legally which is a betrayal of trust of the people she writes to.

    She talks of fears about a run a way convention and the boogie man getting to totally re-write our constitution and things that might happen. She talks of the with a shred of evidence if proving her fears could ever happen. She talks of how our elected officials in the states are not trustworthy, if that is the case then why even Vote for them, why not be done with and start the revolution and shooting war right now!

    So you see she misrepresents not only herself and her credentials but the founding fathers as well. You can not claim to be a lover of the Constitution and want Congress and the Government to follow it to the letter and be against part of it. The my friend is hypocrisy at a new level.

    She gives now viable process for saving this nation and our constitution other than electing more better conservatives and educating the public. Well we have been trying to elect more and better Conservatives for almost 80 years now and have gotten no further than a handful of good conservatives to represent us. You know as well as I that by the end of the second term in office any conservative is turned into the establishment. Also the JBS and others have been trying to educate the public ever since they were establish in early 60s. And they are no further along than when they started, for you see people turn them off when they start trying to make you believe the Constitution was written by a Run-A-Way Convention and then was not adopted legally. Good patriots will not allow the history and our Founding Fathers and our country to me smeared and besmirched.

    Now we are very very close to losing our Country and our Constitution by doing nothing or letting the status quote continue. At the very least those of us writing a talking Article V Convention of States are providing a plausible answer to our problem, one where no blood is shed. Our country deserve this chance at the very least, and if it does not work out the and only can we say to our Lord, We have done all we can to save this great Nation and spare the blood, now is the time take forcible action.

    Liked by 4 people

    • your implication is not based in fact and I wish it were. I also would prefer that you use correct verbiage when posting articles like this. I believe that you are “miss informed”……to use your vernacular. Why is it that you folks who support the Con-con cannot tolerate a good debate on the merits of your argument? You are merely one more puppet of the Saul Alinskyites who are trying to besmirch a person who disagrees with you on the merits of your arguments. You are being defeated in every state you are presenting these innuendoes in because you are trying to besmirch the messenger. You cannot stand on your own argument’s merits. There are none. And the quotes from the Founders still stand: they shuddered to think of yet another attempt to re-seat another convention of the states. Those founders had morals. I don’t know of any of the proponents of the Con-con with that high a standard of knowledge or honor.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You are misinformed.

        First of all, it is not a “ConCon” that Article V calls for but rather a Convention for proposing Amendments. And besides, the only one using Alinsky style tactics is Huldah and her ilk. They misconstrue and misinterpret the FACTS about Article V.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Susan Thrapp-If we were discussing a con con maybe you’d have a point-but we aren’t. An Article V is not a CONstitutional CONvention. You have a “vernacular” problem of your own. If you knew your history you would know that Article V was adopted into the Constitution UNANIMOUSLY. So how is you think they had reservations. Is it because you cherry pick the Federalist Papers and failed to figure out that their concern was to have an Article V so as not to have another “general convention” which is what you refer to with the phrase you use incorrectly as a “con-con”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Either way, the argument is mute.
        Congress CANNOT call anything, especially something that is Constitutional since the U.S. Congress has not been Constitutional since 1913. NOR would anybody in there right mind want it to. The word “call” gives it the duty to issue all the terms of such a gathering, where it is, who gets to attend, all the rules of it, etc….
        WE THE PEOPLE and the STATES should have been holding this gathering at least every 30 years, per generation. It is their fault we are in such a mess and until we restore the employee of the States back to its contractual state, we are just pissing on our own leg!

        Like

    • Thanks Tom for the lengthy reply but you failed to provide evidence to corroborate your opinions so I won’t bother going on that wild goose chase.

      Re: “Hiding behind an alias is no different than lying to your friends.”

      As I pointed out in my original comment, this website is anonymous and so is the author of the article but that doesn’t seem to bother you. Selective outrage?.

      It’s rather ironic that you make that statement and then cite Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The authors who wrote ‘The Federalist’ under the pseudonym: Publius. Apparently they were no better than those who lie to their friends, according to you anyways.

      Re: “As for Publius Huldah or Joanna Scutari, the problem with her is she is pretending to be something she is not, a Constitutional Scholar. She is pretending her Law Degree is in Constitutional LAW and it is not.”

      For the sake of clarity, will you define your use of the term constitutional scholar so we can establish a standard to determine who is and isn’t one?

      You see, I am trying to determine if Mark Levin is one or not. From what I could find on him, he holds a B.A. in Political Science and a J.D. in law. Yet publication after publication bill him as a constitutional lawyer, including the Convention of the States Project. In fact, Mark Levin calls himself a constitutional lawyer at his own website: MarkLevinShow. com. Just click on ‘About the Show’, it’s the 4th paragraph down, first sentence.

      So what makes Mark Levin a constitutional lawyer and Publius Huldah not?

      Thanks,

      ~BTG

      “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” ~Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 21, 1787

      “The reasons assigned in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this city, are unanswerable to show the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #85, 1787

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh My Gosh you have no concept of what you just said, the Convention Alexander Hamilton of The Federalist #85 in that particular part is talking about is a General Convention not an Article V Convention of States for if you would have continued to read you may have figured that out. The followers of Publius Haldah so love to quote the Federalist papers but you never read the whole paper to find out exactly what the writer is talking about. So let me finish Federalist #85 for you. Let me see you were reading from Paragraph 9 and Hamilton was referring to the just completed Philadelphia Convention of 1787, ie the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Now if you read the 13th. paragraph about 1/2 way into that paragraph you find he is talking about an Article V Convention of States and he answers several of Publius Haldah’s concerns of the Congress taking over any Convention of States as applied under the second part of the Fifth Article: Let me start at the word BUT. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, (he is talking about Article V of the Constitution), the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” the words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the States Legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interest, can there be any room to apprehend any sure difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. Which is exactly what we at the Convention of States Project are wanting to do with the States Applying for an Article V Convention of States.

        Publius Huldah has said many time that she uses the Federalist Papers as the defining document for all things in the Constitution.

        You see she always, ALWAYS shy’s away from continuing to quote from the very documents she is using to try to make her point. She picks out a sentence here and a sentence there to make you believe she knows what she is saying. She knows not to continue in the quoting of a document of James Madison or Alexander Hamilton or the Federalist papers because she knows if she continues she will dispel her on false narratives. Now I can continue to give you more references such as the letter James Madison wrote to George Lee Turberville on Nov. 2nd. 1788, where James Madison was against a General Convention and yes it was a GENERAL CONVENTION (ie Constitutional Convention) and not an Article V amending Convention of the states. You must research the times and what was being discussed by the Anti Federalist and the general population of the time. The Anti Federalist did not like the new proposed Constitution because as they said it did not go far enough to give the people the rights as claimed in the Declaration of Independence. That is why the Bill of Wrights were written to appease those that wanted more in the new Constitution. You see James Madison knew they put Article V in the Constitution to handle these situations. So you see my friend there is a huge difference and to try to make the claim they are the same is disingenuous to say the least. She is misleading her readers when she makes the claim that a Constitutional Convention and an Article V Amending convention of the states are the same for they are two separate events.

        It was the Democrats Ted Kennedy and some of his cronies that coined the Con Con Phrase back in the 60s and 70s when there was a push to have an Article V to write an amendment to stop the activisms coming from the Supreme Court. The Democrats love the activism. And for Joanna to quote those great liberal judges Berger and Goldman about how bad and terrible things could come out of a Con Con and might destroy the Constitution is just smoke and mirrors to keep their power, for they knew very well what an Amending Convention of States could do to stop them from legislating from the bench. And when Publius Huldah jumps on their band wagon she is assuming their position and aligning herself up to be a Liberal. Just remember it was Judge Berger that gave us Roe V Wade and 60 million babies killed for no good reason. Now I am sure she is proud to be associated with that.

        So if you want more just give me the paper and the sentence she is quoting in her words proving that James Madison is against an Article V Amending Convention of States and I’ll show you where she is wrong. For you see James Madison in all his writing is consistent with his stance on all of the Constitution, he was for every word written, even though he knew it was not perfect it was the best that could be produced at that time. And knew it would need adjustments from time to time and even said so in much of his writings. And if you care we can go over the proof that the framers followed the orders they were given to a T when drafting the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. And I will quote you the Letter that went to the Confederation Congress Giving them instruction on the amendment to the Articles of Confederation and then how they were to go about having the States ratify the new propose Document (Constitution). So you see people are taking what Publius Huldah is saying and not doing their own research. So please anytime anyone gives you a sentence or two from a particular document and says it is one way, you should go look up the document and read the whole thing before forming your opinion. You may even need to do more research as to what was going on with the public in general at the time the document was written.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Only a handful of lawyers are ever certified to argue before the Supreme Court. Mark Levin is Publius Hildah (Joanna Scutari) is not.

        Liked by 1 person

    • If you want to know the real truth about the Constitution and the afore mentioned people, I would highly recommend Hillsdale College’s free online courses. It covers all the writtings and background and truths that were discussed and why the Constitution was written as it was.
      It is a very valuable tool to have and it proves that these men were brilliant as well as extremely insightful about their opinions of what could happen in America’s future.
      It is obvious that the Constitution was written to prevent exactly the kind of wanna be tyrant as we have in the WH right now.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. If Joanna can’t stand the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen. If you want to get in the game, step up to the plate. If she is challenged she feigns hurt and proclaims “you’re afraid of a little old lady?” She wants her cake and eat it too. Oppose her once on Twitter and get blocked. It’d be hilarious if there weren’t so many ignorant people who lap up everything she says and play Chicken Little 24/7.

    We have a country to save, and no time to waste dickering with hand wringers and Chicken Littles who think state legislatures are more likely to “nullify” which is NOT in the Constitution (no, it is NOT) than participate in a convention of states.

    Lead, follow, or GET OUT OF THE WAY.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I wonder when this woman “Publius Huldah” (AKA Joanna Ruth Martin) thinks it would be appropriate for Article V Convention of States to ever be used? The founders have COS in the constitution so they must have thought it would be useful sometime.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Ah Susan, the irony in your post is incredible. You cry because we are supposedly disparaging poor Joanna yet you see yourself as the grammar police. She who throws stones….

    We have debated her ideas and they are based on irrational fear and an insane wish that states essentially “nullify” (where exactly is that word in the Constitution again?) and secede. Yes, that is the answer!!! Let’s all secede, engage in a great civil war and become Rome. What a splendid idea to the irrational.

    And it’d be funny if not so pathetic that you all get your talking points like the left (are you the left?) and spew out the same words, right on cue. First it was Soros (haven’t seen any proof of that yet from your side, because there isn’t, but that doesn’t stop you does it?) Now it’s Alinsky.

    But I want to thank you all for helping me figure out something that has perplexed me, how Obama was elected twice. With people of your and Joanna’s mindset, I now understand it.

    We will persist and remain on track, so cry wolf all you’d like. We will not be deterred, because there is a country to save, and I for one will not let it fall because you’d rather be chicken little than use what is in the Constitution as a legal remedy given to us by the Framers who knew a time like this would come.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi FLHD64

      Re: “We have debated her ideas and they are based on irrational fear and an insane wish that states essentially “nullify” (where exactly is that word in the Constitution again?)…”

      The framers originally didn’t include a Bill of Rights because they feared that if a right was not directly expressed it would be considered non-existent (see Federalist #84). Your response seems to have proven them correct even though nullification is self-evident by reading the 9th and 10th amendments. But if not, maybe this will help:

      “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #78

      “When Congress makes a law in virtue of their constitutional authority, it will be an actual law. I do not know a more expressive or a better way of representing the idea by words. Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” ~Samuel Johnston, Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention July 29-30, 1788

      I can also cite the “insane” James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on nullification too if that wasn’t enough.

      ~BTG

      Like

      • Gadfly-the problem here is that all laws we are actually living under are not pursuant to Constitutional authority. No part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to allow other agencies (IRS EPA, Dept of Education, HHS, FCC) to make law in the form of a guideline, rule, regulation etc. Yet Congress has done that. That is part of the need we have for an Article V convention of states, putting an end to this practice and rolling back what they have done.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. For some reason I am unable to reply directly to Tom Dowdy’s response to me. Since he appears more interesting in attacking Publius Huldah with his blatantly biased opinions, it’s probably for the best.

    According to Tom, there are numerous conventions that can be called. There is a general convention, a convention for proposing amendments, a constitutional convention, a convention of the states, etc etc etc. Tom would have us believe that they all differ in some way he has yet to define. Which is becoming a problem with him, he doesn’t appear interested in having a meaningful dialogue, only asserting his opinions.

    The problem Tom runs into is this: there is only one convention identified in the Constitution for amending the Constitution. Give it whatever name you like but it can only mean the convention outlined in Article V of the US Constitution. Otherwise it would be unconstitutional.

    Once the states apply for a Article V convention, Congress must call the convention and they will do so according to their interpretation, not mine or Tom’s or Mark Levin’s interpretations. There is no stopping or controlling a convention from the outside, the yet to be named delegates will have complete autonomy once called. So I ask, what is Congress’ interpretation?

    “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.” ~Abraham Lincoln Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, August 27, 1856

    “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” ~Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio, September 17, 1859

    Like

    • gadfly-what are you smoking? Congress IS the outside in an Article V. They would not be interfering with the states. The delegates belong to the states not Congress. They are commissioned by the states to do the bidding of the states. You have drunk the Publius kool-ade.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Wow, you obviously did not read what was written. I was referring to Two types of Conventions that are referred to in the Federalist Papers and the writings of James Madison. Again you, as does Publius Huldah , read into documents only that which you want to understand. Let me explain again and this time I will type REAL SLOW so you can hopefully understand what I am saying. And by the way it is not my opinion it is facts that can be easily found by researching just a little.

    The two different types of Conventions as understood by the founders and written about in the Federalist Papers and in many of James Madison writings. 1. The first is called by multiple names, Constitutional Convention, General Convention, or just Convention as Hamilton did so in Federalist #85 I will use your quote ” The reason assigned in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this city, are unanswerable to show the utter improbability of assembling a new Convention, (MEANING A SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION NOT AN AMENDING CONVENTION OF STATES AS CALLED FOR IN ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION), under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met. (“THE LATE CONVENTION MET.” AS YOU CAN SEE HE IS REFERRING TO THE CONVENTION HELD IN PHILADELPHIA BETWEEN MAY AND SEPTEMBER OF 1787) 2. The other type of Convention is that stated in the Constitution of the United States under Article V which is only for proposing amendments and thus called an Amending Convention and or A Convention of States, Ie.. the Convention of States is what the Founders understood it to be, reference the first application from Virginia after ratification of the new Constitution sent to Congress on November 14, 1788. Now I do hope that clears up your misunderstanding and misrepresenting of my words in trying to make people think I was talking of more than two types of Conventions.

    Now as for your contention stated in your fourth paragraph above of you recent writing. Let me refer you back to Your and Pulblius Huldah’s contention that the Federalist Papers are the Bible for understanding the Constitution of which I do agree, it is just that you and her are without understanding of what it is telling you. Again I refer you to Federalist Paper #85 written by Alexander Hamilton as I said in my previous writing, start in the 13th. paragraph about half way down where it states “But there is yet a further consideration,” continue reading and you will see where Congress gets to call the amending convention by naming the date and the location where it will be held. That is all they get to say until it is time to ratify. They do not get to pick the subject, or the delegates, how many delegates will be sent from each state, or who will run the amending convention, they do not get to participate in any fashion, in other words and I quote from that paragraph ” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.” (THAT BODY. MEANING THE NATIONAL CONGRESS) But you seem to ignore that fact in your latest refusal to acknowledge my rebuttal. In fact you did not even acknowledge I had given you that information. Is it because you know I am right and you refuse to accept the truth? Or is it because you are so strung up in defending Publius Huldah you cannot see the truth.

    You claim I give no examples of my claims and that it is all my opinion, sir I have given you multiple examples you have just refused to acknowledge them. You have refused to acknowledge my referring you to the George Lee Turberville letter date Nov. 2nd. 1788, and you refuse to acknowledge my quotes from the Federalist Papers proving you and Publius Huldah wrong. Now if you like I well be happy to send you copies of those documents so you can read it for yourself. All you have to is send me your email address.

    You give two quotes from speeches given by Abraham Lincoln prior to his election.

    “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.” ~Abraham Lincoln Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, August 27, 1856

    “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” ~Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio, September 17, 1859

    And yes why would he not make such a pronouncement, for he knew if he became president he may have to take matters into his own hands, just like Obama is doing. Now I am not taking away from him being a good president but I will remark that he did the same thing that other presidents have done including our present one. By the Emancipation Proclamation , which was in defiance of the Constitution by writing law from the Presidency in the form of a executive order. So of course he would talk of not wanting anyone to amend the constitution for they may take power away from the office.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You cite sources yet those sources don’t corroborate your opinions.

      In regards to Federalist #85, you tell me to “continue reading and you will see where Congress gets to call the amending convention by naming the date and the location where it will be held. That is all they get to say until it is time to ratify.”

      Yet that is not what is said. Either you haven’t read #85 for yourself and are regurgitating COS talking points, or you didn’t expect me to actually read it. That paragraph is clarifying that Congress has no choice but to call the convention if the appropriate amount of states apply, in that PARTICULAR, nothing is left to the discretion of Congress.

      Though it wasn’t a complete waste of time re-reading #85, I was reminded of this particular quote:

      “For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated.” ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #85, 1787

      Does that mean Hamilton wouldn’t find Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments useful?

      You do the the same thing with James Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville. You keep trying to dismiss it from evidence with your opinions because it annihilates your fallacious arguments. I have the links to all those papers so there is no need for me to give you my email address, but thanks anyways.

      As for your attempt to invalidate Abraham Lincoln’s words, are you aware of the fallacy: Appeal to motive?

      It’s become quite clear that you are projecting yourself unto your opponents because the truth is not on your side.

      ~BTG

      “The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair
      and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”

      “If an angel should be winged from Heaven, on an errand of mercy to our country, the first accents that would glow on his lips would be, ‘Beware! Be cautious! You have everything to lose; nothing to gain.’ We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”

      ~Both quotes by Daniel Webster from his 4th of July Oration, 1802.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Blue Tail,

        You know you are trying to turn the words of a great Patriot away for the liberties of the people. Alexander Hamilton goes on to state: ” Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the States Legislatures in amendments, which may affect local interest, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union of points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the National Authority.” (Meaning – the State Legislatures in an Article V Amending Convention of the States will propose amendments that will erect barriers to stop the National Government from encroaching on the liberties of the States and the people. MY WORDS)

        Also stated in that paragraph but earlier is this: ” The Congress “Shall” call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the desertion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air.” (Meaning – The congress cannot run the convention, no can they assign delegates, or pick the subject of the proposed amendments or have anything to do with the convention as far a trying to control or run it. MY WORDS)

        Now you quoted Hamilton : “For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated.” ~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #85, 1787

        (And then you said:)
        Does that mean Hamilton wouldn’t find Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments useful?”

        Wow you read but you did not understand. Hamilton is saying that he would agree completely with Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” and find it very useful!
        What part of ” amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers. (All of Mark Levin’s book covers these very types of amendments Hamilton would find useful.)

        I will finish with this: The only solution that you, PH, and the John Birch Society offers is an Armed rebellion. Shedding blood in the street of America is not the answer. While I admit that may be a viable option but NOT AT THIS TIME, we must as a civilized society with laws expire all possible means to regain our Liberties and Freedom through peaceful, lawful means. And if these do not prove successful then and only then would I ever suggest the last option. Now if we continue doing what we have been doing it will take us more than 20 years or possibly a life time before we affect any change. So I say lets exhaust all lawful options and use the Constitution to save the Constitution. For I fear (My Opinion only), if we do not use Article V to save the Constitution and our nation now we will loose the constitution within the next 5 years. So you can continue down this road of which you may well regret or you can choose to join us and use the power of the all people to make sure you fears never come to past.

        Thanks for the debate.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. We do have a Country to save, and I support Publius (Joanna) 100% because she speaks the truth. Those who do not have ears to hear, are simply ignorant of Truth. It is ignorance that brought our Country to where it is today. Truth will set us free, and much Gratitude to Publius for having the Courage that ignorance knows not of!

    Like

    • Kathy-Do you even know who she is and her background? Really? She’s no constitutitional scholar at all. Divorce lawyer who married her convicted felon client? She may be entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to her own set of facts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes Teaxs Belle I do know this “messenger” speaks the TRUTH about our Constitution. The TRUTH does not belong to “her” any more than it belongs to anyone, for TRUTH stands whether uttered by this woman or a baboon! I don’t care that she used to be a divorce lawyer or who she marries or divorces, I know there was a moment when Truth struck her to her very core and she is now compelled to speak it to those with ears that can hear.
        It is the old Alinsky blueprint to personally attack the messenger to distract people from the message.
        I have travelled to many meetings to hear Publius speak and have then researched for myself the facts (that do not belong to her) she presents to see if they are true. I have not attended one meeting, not one, where the COS speaker could argue with the facts presented. Their responses are typically emotional cries, like someone who sees themselves as a victim because they have no facts to support the COS, but just repeat what was given them to say.
        If you will notice, whenever Publius responds to anyone who presents the COS jargon, she does so with FACTS about our Constitution, not her opinion about the Constitution, just the Facts!
        It is to our own peril if we entrust those who have neglected our Constitution for so long, to now change it. The Constitution is not the problem, it is the People who have not bothered to know it, that is the problem.
        I do hope Teaxs Belle that you will put aside your condemnation of the messenger and focus on the message she presents.

        Like

  9. Wow – a lot to read and many references to check. Luckily I have all the documents handy and have read them many times. I believe, and this is only my OH!pinion, that at this point in time we need an Article V Convention of States.

    What is happening today with the Federal Gov. is overreaching so far as to spy on American citizens in their private conversations and communications. To insert itself into the everyday lives of Americans, to their detriment.

    “Divide and Conquer” is the mantra coming out of Washington D.C. at every turn. Religion is being attacked; race baiting is running rampant; illegal immigrants are given social security numbers; citizens are forced to buy medical insurance or pay a fine (a wholly unconstitutional tax) and this list could get very long as much more is happening behind the scenes and right in front of our faces and yet, we are supposed to sit back and take this?

    People who try to deter (like this P.H. person) Americans (dare I say “Patriots?”), are spouting a false rhetoric to confuse and ultimately deter the public from having a voice or supporting a cause for the COS because it will UNITE the masses. Thus “divide and conquer” would begin to fail.

    Like everything else, you have to follow the money. Many states have agreed to Common Core because without doing so they lose federal funding for education. That’s just one example and from there many things the states have agreed to is to get more federal money. So I don’t really think we can count on “nullification” in many instances.

    The Federal government must be reigned in or the country will divide itself into so many factions that nothing will be able to be done to save the United States as it will not make sense anymore for us to be “United.”

    That’s my wholly uneducated and backwoods OH!pinion. As to P.H. and those of her ilk – whatever you have in your back pocket, you can keep it there, it does not interest me. I don’t need a socialist, communist, or neo-nazi organization (whatever) explaining my Constitution to me, I understand it just fine.

    .02

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Every one of you taking PHs side of this argument are claiming I am giving my opinion, which is a false narrative, just as false as the ones argued by PH. I have read directly from the The Federalist Papers, both James Madison’s writings and Alexander Hamilton’s and yet you still contend that both men were against an Article V amending convention of the States. You prick and choose one or two sentences when trying to make your point and yet you fail to read the whole paper with understanding. James Madison never, not one time after the submission of the new document (proposed Constitution), said a negative word about Article V, not in any letters or any of his writings. Any time he spoke of a general convention or a Constitutional Convention it was to say that he did not believe it was in the best interest of the nation. He was NOT speaking of an Article V amending convention of the states. Always when speaking of a remedy to any suggested changes it was to use the Fifth Article of the Constitution, for only through Amendments was the document to be improved, even in his letter to Mr. Edmond in 1830 when there were calls for Nullification he mentioned the states would be better served to use Article V of the Constitution to resolve issue with new laws. He new and understood nullification but he also new for it to be affective required a majority of the states to nullify a law and if you were going to do that why not amend the constitution to prevent congress from writing more laws like the one you wanted to nullify. Now I know you are going to claim this is my opinion, but your wrong it is fact go read the letter. But I forget you and PH read without understanding what you read you twist the meaning of what you read to what you believe and not what is fact.

    You and PH have taken on the left agenda in these discussions, for it was Ted Kennedy by in the late 60’s that stated the misinformation that you and PH are parroting. If you are so afraid the sky is going to fall join our efforts and make sure the agenda is followed as stated in the application. For with all of us pulling together we can stop this run a way federal government and turn this ship around and bring our country back to its original Constitutionals Roots. All you and PH are doing by your naysaying it to further divide this country which by the way is exactly what BO and the left want to happen, so you see you are furthering their cause. After all the JBS was for an Article V, their first two leaders were for it. So please stop the attacks and come with us to rein in and stop the abuses of this government. You seam to forget those immortal words UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Why not use an Article V convention AND nullification? Taking our country back is important, so use every tool available.

    Like

  12. I agree why not, we should us every possible lawful means available to us before entering the point of no return. Because once that bullet is fired it can never be brought back no matter how much you wish.

    Like

  13. Once again I am unable to reply directly to Tom Dowdy so this is in response to his.reply to me on May 18.

    Re: “”Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the States Legislatures in amendments, which may affect local interest, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union of points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the National Authority.”

    Please explain to me again how those state legislatures erected barriers against the 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments. Btw, you are welcome to add any more bad amendments you feel should be included.

    Clearly Hamilton’s calculations were based upon a virtuous people reigning in a corrupted government, not a corrupt citizenry who has corrupted both the state and federal governments.

    Re: “Hamilton is saying that he would agree completely with Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments”. (All of Mark Levin’s book covers these very types of amendments Hamilton would find useful.)”

    If that is the position you wish to take, excellent. Now all I have to do is prove only one of Mark’s amendments which Alexander Hamilton didn’t agree with to prove your statement to be false.

    “By giving the state legislatures the ultimate say on major federal laws, on major federal regulations, on major Supreme Court decisions, should 3/5 of state legislatures act to override them within a two year period…” ~Mark Levin, Annual A.L.E.C. Conference, Dec 5, 2014

    Now let us compare that with what Alexander Hamilton wrote:

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #78

    “Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #28

    Self-explanatory I believe, but if not I would be more than happy to compare and contrast for you.

    I am left wondering why the states haven’t been nullifying the laws repugnant to the Constitution and why we should now trust them tampering with the Constitution instead.

    Re: “The only solution that you, PH, and the John Birch Society offers is an Armed rebellion.”

    Your fallacies have long grown stale, especially your straw-men. How have you come to determine that my solution is “Armed rebellion”?

    Again what you put forth is false since I have never suggested, nor do I believe “Armed rebellion” is the solution for the same reason a Article V convention isn’t. I am not affiliated with any organization but I seriously doubt PH or the John Birch Society believe in armed rebellion either. If they do, please provide the evidence.

    Instead of worrying about JBS, perhaps we should focus on the corporate bill mill known as the American Legislative Exchange Council who is one of the major power players behind the Convention of the States…

    ~BTG

    “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford 1814

    Like

    • First, I will reveal that I am committed to the Convention of States Project (presently a district captain). I attended one of PB’s lectures. Setting aside the fact that I don’t agree with her “facts” and opinions, I found her presentation to be obnoxious. She repeatedly accused the COS leadership, supporters and the project itself to be “evil” (typical Alinsky).
      Having read all of your comments, I believe all of you care deeply about the country and the original Constitution. Once the COS is called, I hope all opposed to it will support it. Our damaged Constitution can be amended to correct this, but only if crafted by the states.
      Progressivism is the root cause of our problem – the Wilsonian amendments and “Administrative State” were the result. 100 years of creeping Socialism has allowed the “cancer” to grow to a critical point.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. I have not read all of the above comments but I did witness a debate on the matter with Publius and an opponent for the Convention of States who was not at all prepared. If you read our constitution and compare it to what is going on in our country, it is clear that our problem is with our so called leaders and the people who continue to elect them over and over again. An convention will only make thing worse. George Washington said it best, our country will not survive in a Godless society. Our elected officials are only interested in getting reelected not governing!

    Like

    • Daniel; It is unfortunate that the person representing the COS at your debate was unprepared (please go to http://www.conventionofstates.com for a better representation). In the debate in which I participated, Publius was the one not prepared. If, as you say, the problem is with our Federal Leaders and the people who elect them; the only option left is our state legislators (short of armed revolution-which even Alinsky would say we are not yet ready for). The states can totally bypass the FED by convening a COS. I fail to understand how a “convention will only make things worse”.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Joanna claims in essence that “nullification” is the “answer” to address government overreach and must continue to be perused ignoring the fact that more laws are being passed than are being nullified and our liberties continue to be diminished. Her suggested plan is failing, miserably, and she refuses to even entertain the notion that an amending convention has the ability to prevent these laws from being adopted in the first place. Oh well, does anyone really expect a 70+ old person with a history of foolish choices to recognize a wise choice when shown one? I think not, thanks for the expose.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I do believe the country is lost. With all the info presented above it is totally confusing for the ignorant masses much less for the lying immoral politicians. At 73 I do hope to be able to fight with guns if necessary to restore the constitution and moral principals of the Christian Bible upon which this once great country was founded. WE were once the beacon of hope for the world but now have become the dumping ground of cesspool invaders. If this country fails, it will be the end of the world and mankind. So be it according to the Bible. The Bible and the Constitution of the United States are the most perfect document written by man and our only means of survival in this troubled world. The men and women that have died for this country have held these documents deep within their hearts and that is why Americans are such good people and fighters…just for fun—” I can take out 20 to 1 the enemy within with my 50 caliber @ 1700 yards and if I miss I can always BS them into oblivion like the politician do!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s