reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Publius Hulda, a retired litigation attorney who writes on the original intent of the Constitution using the Federalist Papers, argues that the Supreme Court has ignored the Federalist Papers and the framers’ Constitution for two centuries. He contends the attorney general’s opinion raises questions but fails to cite article, section, and verse where Congress is authorized to restrict arms, asserting that when the Constitution was ratified, the federal government’s powers were enumerated and that there was no delegation of authority to restrict the people’s arms.
Hulda emphasizes that Article I, Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress for the national government, but he asserts that the framers did not grant Congress the power to restrict arms. He cites Federalist Paper No. 46 by James Madison to support the claim that the American people are armed so they can defend themselves, their communities, and their states from a potentially tyrannical federal government that oversteps constitutional limits. He cites specific constitutional text: Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and notes that Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, requiring every able-bodied male citizen aged 18 to 46 (excluding federal officers and employees) to buy a rifle, ammunition, and report to local militia training. He also references Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, which he says authorizes letters of marque and reprisal, enabling privateers who conducted private warfare during conflicts such as the War of 1812.
Hulda asserts that the framers contemplated a heavily armed people and that the federal government was never authorized to restrict arms in any fashion. He claims that attempts to restrict arms represent usurpation of powers not possessed by the federal government. He criticizes the Attorney General for basing arguments on court opinions rather than the Constitution, arguing there is a vast gulf between the two. He references that there are 200 years’ worth of Supreme Court opinions and quotes Charles Evans Hughes saying that the Constitution means what the judges say it means, labeling this prevailing dogma as a lie and arguing it has led to a federal government no longer constrained by constitutional chains.
Hulda contends that the oath of office requires obedience to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court, which he views as a creature of the Constitution and fully subject to its terms. He counters the AG’s claim that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on federal powers by noting that the framers anticipated corruption and lawlessness among judges. Therefore, Congress, the President, and the states possess checks on the Supreme Court. He cites Federalist No. 81, where Hamilton describes impeachment and removal as checks on lawless judges, and asserts the President’s oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to obey the Supreme Court. He references Madison’s Virginia Resolutions, which state that states, as the sovereign parties to the Constitution, are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the Constitution and may check all three branches, including the judiciary, by nullifying their acts if necessary. He notes he did not finish his argument and hopes to discuss the so-called nullification crisis of 1832 during questions. Speaker 0 thanks him for his comments.