Title: A response to Publius Huldah
Original CoS Document (slug): a-response-to-publius-huldah
Login Required to view? No
Attached File: Publius_Huldah.pdf
Anonymous blogger Publius Huldah attacks the Founder’s solution for a runaway federal government with a series of ad hominems and misdirections. A perpetual naysayer, she can propose no better solution of her own, other than the extra-constitutional doctrine of nullification
Created: 2017-07-31 20:19:37
Updated: 2017-07-31 20:46:21
Published: 2017-07-31 20:00:00
Converted: 2025-04-14T19:24:36.919757152
A Response to Publius Huldah
Michael Farris, J.D., LL.M.
Chancellor, Patrick Henry College
Anonymous blogger Publius Huldah attacks the Founder’s
solution for a runaway federal government with a series of ad
hominems and misdirections. A perpetual naysayer, she can propose
no better solution of her own, other than the extra-constitutional
doctrine of nullification.
Huldah betrays her lack of credibility in the opening line of her
email when she says there is no such thing as a Convention of States.
Contrary to her assumption, that phrase is not a fabrication of ours.
It comes from the very first Article V application which was filed by
the state of Virginia in 1789.1 If she objects to that phrase, she had
best take it up with the Founders.
The bulk of her article is a giant ad hominem directed against
our organization and Professor Robert Natelson. Behind all this
bluster, her argument rests on two easily refuted facts: (1) the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway convention, and
(2) James Madison had concerns that Article V didn’t lay out the
convention process in sufficient detail. I have already debunked the
first claim as a myth in my response to Mr. DeWeese, so here I will
focus on the second.
1
1 ANNALS OF CONG. 258–59 (J. Gales, Sr. ed., 1834) (H.R. May 5, 1789), available at
http://article5library.org/gettext.php?doc=1418.
It is true that at the Constitutional Convention Madison raised
some questions about “the form, quorum, &c” of such a convention.
But according to Madison’s own notes, the motion to add a
Convention of States to Article V passed “nem. con.” “without
objection.”2 Apparently Madison had his doubts put to rest, or he
didn’t consider them important enough to vote against the proposed
change to Article V. If a Convention of States were the terrible
constitutional reset button that Huldah describes, surely Madison,
or at least one of the other Framers, would have voted against it.
As it turns out, the Founders strongly supported it. In fact,
Madison later expressed his staunch support for Article V in
Federalist No. 43. In praise of Article V he wrote:
The mode preferred by the convention, seems to be
stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards against
that extreme facility, which would render the constitution
too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might
perpetuate its discovered faults.
There can be no doubt that Madison, like the other Founders, was a
champion for Article V.
Mr. DeWeese and Ms. Huldah can’t get their own story straight.
DeWeese attacks the credibility of the Founders, particularly James
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, by accusing them of illegally
adopting the Constitution. Huldah, on the other hand, expects us to
venerate this supposed tyrant and hang on his every word. How
strange that they should so heavily rely on the same man they accuse
of a felony.
Of course, as I have argued at length, history vindicates
Madison and the other Framers. We are quite right to listen to them,
and their unanimous support for a Convention of States speaks
volumes.
2
5 DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 551 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1827),
available at http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1909/1314.05_Bk.pdf.