New 2018 Camp Photos added to the Picture Album!

This year the newspaper staff collected over 850 photos from several cameras during the course of publishing the daily camp newspaper. Campers and staff interested in downloading choice photos should go the menu above: “Camp Items” | “Camp Pictures”. There you will find slide shows by category for each of our ten camps. Many thanks to all of you who came into the office and offered to share your pictures. — Editor

Boston Censorship on Trial

Roger Gannom (Center) of Liberty Counsel in front of the Federal Courthouse with Hal Shurtleff, Rev. Steve Craft, Pastor Earl Wallace, and Dr. Punymurtula Kishore

On Thursday August 9th,  a hearing was held on Camp Constitution’s lawsuit against the City of Boston for censoring the Christian flag.  Here is a link to the article from Liberty Counsel:

The States Determine Qualifications for Voting and Procedures for Registration, and only Citizens may Vote By Publius Huldah 


  1. Summary

The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting.  And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.

Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens. 1 But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship.  I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.

A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote. 2

The federal government is unlawfully mandating that illegal aliens be allowed to vote in our elections.

  1. The Concept of “Citizenship”

Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a Godsend to our Framing Generation because it provided the new concepts our Framers needed to transform us from subjects of a Monarchy to Citizens of a Republic.3  Book I, Ch. XIX, defines “citizens”, “inhabitants” and “naturalization”:

  • “Citizens” are the members of the civil society who are bound to it by certain duties, subject to its authority, participate in its advantages and in the rights of citizens [§212].
  • “Inhabitants” are foreigners who are permitted to settle in the country and are subject to its laws, but do not participate in all the rights of citizens [§213].
  • “Naturalization” is the process whereby the country grants to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society [§214].

So “citizens” have civic advantages and political rights which are not extended to “inhabitants” – and certainly not to aliens who have unlawfully entered a country.4

Accordingly, our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments5 refer to voting by “Citizens”.

  1. The Federalist Papers show that voting is a privilege of Citizens alone

The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”.  They weren’t allowed to vote.  Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:

“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States].  In some of the States the difference is very material.  In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added]6

In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants.  In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.

Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:

“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom) [boldface added]

“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) *** “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…”  (No. 57, 7th para from bottom) [boldface added]

“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.) [boldface added]

“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …”  No. 68 (3rd para) [boldface added]

  1. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows our Founding Generation saw voting as restricted to citizens

Suffrage is:

“1. A vote; a voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office or trust. Nothing can be more grateful to a good man than to be elevated to office by the unbiased suffrages of free enlightened citizens.”

Citizen is:

“5. In the United States, a person, native7 or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise…”

Franchise is:

“1.  … the right to vote for governor, senators and representatives, is a franchise belonging to citizens, and not enjoyed by aliens…”

Inhabitants and aliens may not vote unless they become naturalized citizens and meet whatever additional qualifications for voting are set forth in the State Constitution. Naturalization is:

“The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, 8 vesting certain tribunals with the power.”

  1. State Constitutions set forth the Qualifications for Voting

When we operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first federal Constitution),9 the States determined the qualifications for voting in state and local elections and in elections to the Continental Congress.  These qualifications were set forth in the State Constitutions, and varied from State to State.

In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.

Our Framers specifically rejected the idea that the new Congress or the State Legislatures would determine who was eligible to vote.  Instead, only The People of each State were competent to define the right of suffrage for their State, and their definition was enshrined in their State Constitution.  In Federalist No. 52 (2nd para), James Madison tells us:

“…The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.10 It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper … To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper … To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention … must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself.  It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments…”[boldface added]

Remember!  Since the federal and state governments are merely “creatures” of constitutions, they have no power to determine who may vote. That power belongs to the “creators” of the governments.  Only The People are competent to set the qualifications for voting; and our determinations are enshrined in our State Constitutions.

  1. The States reserved power to determine procedures for voter registration

Our Constitution of 1787 created a federal government to which we delegated only “few and defined” powers [see chart].  Nowhere in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government power to dictate procedures States must use in registering voters.  Accordingly, it is a “reserved” power.11 Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration.  Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent [at II. A. 2]:

“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.

Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.”

  1. The federal government has usurped the States’ powers to determine who may vote and determine procedures for voter registration

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form!  The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.

But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit.  Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Scalia asserted:

“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” 12

Scalia said,

“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”


and concluded,


“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”


So what should we do when federal courts issue unconstitutional opinions?

  1. Our Framers said nullification is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression

The federal government has refused to control our borders and, as a result, we are being invaded.  The federal government is demanding that invaders be allowed to vote in our elections.  We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.  What does your State Constitution say about qualifications for voting?  Demand that your State government enforce your State Constitution.

And Remember! As Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), federal courts can only issue judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them.  So the President’s “check” on usurping federal judges is to refuse to enforce their opinions.  States must man up and obey the Constitution instead of unconstitutional dictates of the federal Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think that President Trump will send out US Marshalls or the National Guard to FORCE States to allow illegal aliens to vote?  The iron is hot – the time to strike is now.


1Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. says (2nd para):

“…Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship…” [boldface added]

2 The California legislature thus violated Article II, Section 2, California Constitution which says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

3That Vattel had such influence is proved HERE.

4All men everywhere possess the rights God gave them. But in a civil society, the members possess political or civic rights which are not extended to inhabitants, lawful visitors, or illegal alien invaders.

5 With these four Amendments, the States agreed they would not deny suffrage to Citizens on account of race, being a female, not paying the tax, or being between 18 to 21 years of age.  States retain power to deny suffrage to any Citizen on account of other factors (e.g., illiteracy, being on welfare, or stupidity).  

6 Freed slaves were naturalized by §1 of the 14th Amendment.

7Vattel §212:  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [See §§ 215-217 for other places babies may be born as natural-born citizens.]

8Art. I, §8, cl. 4, US Const.

9 The Articles of Confederation were ratified July 9, 1778.

10A “republic” is a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.

11The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) [italics added]

12 Counsel for the State of Arizona made a strategic error in failing to challenge the constitutionality of the NVRA as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress and as in violation of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1, US Const.


2018 Newspapers are Now Archived and Available

The 2018 Newspapers are now in the archive:
Use the “Camp Items” Menu and select “Camp Archive”
You’ll see a Gold Colored Link entitled: “Camp Journal Archives”. Click it.

The 2018 Newspapers are in the right most column.
You should be able to download them as pdf files in color.
Print as needed.

Photos will be uploaded soon.

— Editor

Camp Constitution 2018 YouTube Playlist

Camp Constitution’s 10th Annual Family Camp ended yesterday.  We will have more information on the camp in a subsequent article but we want readers to have a link to our 2018 Playlist.  This list has videos of our classes and activities.  We had an incredible line up of instructors which included Dr Duke Pesta, Lord Christopher Monckton, John McManus, KrisAnne Hall, and Professor Willie Soon.






The Weekly Sam: 18 Reasons to Homeschool Your Childen

Sam Blumenfeld was a pioneer in the homeschool movement.  For several decades, he was a fixture at homeschool conventions across the United States.  Here is a link to a speech he gave in 1993 entitled “18 Reasons to Homeschool Your Children:

Camp Constitution created the Sam Blumenfeld Archives where this audio and thousands of other items are avaiable free of charge.  Here is a link to the archives:


The Blumenfeld Archives




Camp Constitution Six Month Review January-June 2018

Camp Constitution’s Six Month Report for 2018:

The Sam Blumenfeld Archives:

       Hits:  829,228,  Alpha-Phonics Downloaded 48,630.

YouTube:   We are averaging over 2,000 views per day up over 1,000 per day from last year. Professor Willie Soon’s first class at last year’s camp has received almost 131,,000 views.  Many of our videos have been monetized. YouTube: 

Facebook Page: 

Our Facebook page has over 1,573 likes, and our live videos average over 3,000 views.

Speakers Bureau:

We either hosted or were guest speakers at 18 events including an event in Virginia.


We appeared as guests on eight radio stations including two for the first time, and made connections with two other radio show hosts where we will have our camp instructors as guests while they are at camp.   We guest hosted a show in Connecticut-the Lori on Liberty Show.  Our instructors appeared as guest on several live on line shows including the “Morse Force,” ‘The Dr. Duke Show,” and “Uncompromised Talk.”  A media company in New York City asked to do a documentary on our annual family camp.

Article V Convention opposition:

We testified against resolutions in Maine and New Hampshire where all pending resolutions were defeated.  In New Hampshire, the committee hearing the proposed resolutions soundly defeated the Convention of States resolution 17-1.  The Wolf PAC resolution which passed in committee in Massachusetts was changed to a non binding resolution.   In late March, we held a press conference and outreach at the Pennsylvania State House with several members of the media on hand.  In Maine, we interviewed  State Rep Sheldon Hannington who sponsored an Article V Convention but now strongly opposes one.

Camp Constitution Radio on Podomatic:

Our Podomatic page continues to be in the top ten (out of approximately  160) for the category of   “Conservative-Right with close to 800 shows downloaded and almost 2,400 visits. Our show originates on WBCQ The Planet and is heard twice a week on the station as well as  weekly  on and on our YouTube Channel

Camp Constitution Books:

Last year, we created an account on Amazon selling donated books.  This year we have sold over $2,500 worth of books either via Amazon or on Facebook.  We have been blessed by donations of over 2,000 books including a recent donation from Professor Mike Patterson.

New Camps:

We created a weekend camp to be held at the “Cottage in the Woods” campground in Damariscotta, Maine September 14-16 with guest instructor Rev. Steven Craft

Special Projects:

We continue to help  the producer  of “Great Commission Films” with the documentary  “Hero In America,” We donated 1,200 copies of the pocket U.S. Constitution to the Manchester, NH Public School Department.  In early June, we presented the constitutions to the school committee.  We also donated copies of the Constitution to “Constitution Camp” in Chillicothe, Ohio, and to a teacher on Cape Cod.

Camp Constitution Media:

We videotaped presentations at eight  events, and made them available on our YouTube Channel


We had  info tables at eight events (other than our own) including three homeschool shows: Homeschoolers of Maine, Mass Hope, and CHAPs in PA,  and a float in the Flag Day Parade in Dedham, MA where we passed out 700 copies of the U.S. Constitution.

Other Activities:

Mr. Bill McNally, who is the director of the Samuel Blumenfeld Literacy Foundation, will turn the directorship over to me gi ving Camp Constitution the copyright of Sam’ “Phonics for Success” book.

The second half of 2018 has already been a very busy.  We had an information table at an event in Mashpee, MA, a float in the Pittsfield, MA July 4th Parade, and have some speaking engagements and media interviews over the next few weeks.

Just a few days ago, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on our behalf against the City of Boston for denying us a permit to fly the Christian Flag on Boston’s City Hall Plaza.  Liberty Counsel is taking the case “pro bono” and as of yesterday, the story was carried by 10 news outlets including “World Net Daily” and “The Boston Herald.”

  How you can help grow our program:

  Make a monthly donation via our PayPal account accessed from our homepage:

    Start a Constitution Club

  Host a “What is Camp Constitution” presentation in your areas

  Introduce people to the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:  

 Like our Facebook Page:

   Host a Camp Constitution speaker:

I am very blessed to serve as director of Camp Constituion.  My thanks to all of our supports,  campers, and staff  who make Camp Constitution and my position  possible.  May God bless you and may He continue to bless our important work of “Honoring the Past…Teaching the Present and Preparing the  Future.”

Hal Shurtleff, Director of Camp Constitution


The Weekly Sam: Hysteria on the Left

Sam Blumenfeld wrote this the letter to the “Boston Globe” back in 1995 but it could have been written yesterday.

Hysteria on the Left
Chip Berlet’s op-ed piece, “Armed and dangerous,” which appeared in the Globe
on January 6, is not only incredibly inept journalism but reminiscent of the kind of
unfounded “guilt by association” charges attributed to the late Senator Joseph
Nothing that the deranged John Salvi has done, said or written indicates that he
was influenced by any of the well-known organizations mentioned by Berlet, such as
The John Birch Society, Concerned Women for America, or the National Right to Life
Committee. In fact, Salvi ‘s rambling letter, published in the Globe on January 6,
reveals a deplorable ignorance of the aims and precepts of these well established
organizations. I defy Mr Berlet to find one word in the publications of these
organizations that in any way encourages or condones the actions of those who would
kill the providers of abortion. Salvi has only added to the tragedy of abortion, not
alleviated it.
As for the meeting held at Burlington High School last November, I was invited to
speak on the subject of education, which I did. I was not told in advance that one of
the exhibitors would be Den’s Gun Shop. But considering the fact that the right to own
and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, has been under unrelenting
attack by the liberals, I could understand the rationale of having a gun shop exhibit at
the meeting. But to suggest by the craftiest of innuendos that people browsing at the
gun shop table while pro-life leader Dr. Mildred Jefferson was speaking in another
room indicates that she or the browsers or the exhibitor caused or condoned what
John Salvi did is just about the sleaziest and most reprehensible piece of writing I
have yet read by the promoters of hysteria on the left.
People on both the left and the right have had to deal with those deranged
individuals who feel compelled to perpetrate acts of terror and horror. One does not
blame liberal black leadership for the actions of the black man who shot up the
passengers in the Long Island commuter train. We all understand that there is no way
to control solo individuals bent on committing mayhem.
But the concern of those of us on the right is the government’s potential for
committing mayhem. Even Chip Berlet admitted to me that he deplored the way the
U.S. government handled the Waco atrocity. And it is that atrocity, not abortion, that
has galvanized gun owners into such defensive responses as the militia movement
But perhaps the worst of Berlet’s accusations is where he says that “There is a
growing right-wing social movement that uses theological arguments to encourage
direct confrontation of its targets and tolerates discussion of armed resistance.”
I have been involved in the so-called right-wing movement since 1965 and not once
have I heard of such theological arguments. In fact, I’ve heard just the opposite. Dr. R.
J. Rushdoony, leader of the Christian Reconstruction movement, has strongly
denounced demonstrations at abortion clinics let alone the murder of abortion
providers. He believes, as most Christians do, that only the moral regeneration of the
American people will put an end to legalized abortion.
For Berlet to needlessly alarm the readers of the Globe into believing that
conservative organizations have entered a new, sinister phase of armed confrontation
with the left is not only to grossly misinform this newspaper’s readers but to libel those
of us on the right who have spent the last 25 years writing, lecturing and educating
Americans about the vital issues our society faces.
I also question the judgment of the editor who decided to use such an obviously
provocative illustration and title for a smear article that strongly suggests that we on the
right are moving toward Salvi-type terrorism . I know that the Globe is a staunchly
liberal newspaper, but I never thought it would stoop to such unadulterated, Nazi-like
propaganda. Back in 1938, a young Jew assassinated the German ambassador in
Paris. The Nazi propaganda machine blamed the Jews of Germany for the act of one
deranged youth . The result was Kristallnacht during which Jewish synagogues and
stores were burned and destroyed throughout Germany. The irony is that Chip Berlet,
who thinks he’s defending liberalism, is unaware of how much like Goebbels he has
become. Tragically, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld
January 6, 1995