Bob Hilliard

The Constitutional Minute #18: The 2nd Amendment Explained

Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government.


Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms.


Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.


The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 and 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States.


Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government.


What does our Texas State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?


Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.


Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.


Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!


Here is a link for your enjoyment:

Bob Hilliard

The Constitutional Minute #17: Does the federal government need a budget?

Not if we elected folks who would abide by the Constitution! The federal government does not provide for a budget because the enumerated powers are the budget! It’s all so simple. Only the government can muck up such simplicity.

Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want. If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending (and regulation) is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of our federal government disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Various factions are now telling us that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with an amendment, specifically a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment), but we must look at the interactions of one part of the Constitution with the other parts to get a complete picture and to prevent unintended consequences! How many of those have we had in the past?

An amendment is not a stand-alone document. Its parts are wonderfully interwoven with other parts of the Constitution. Once an amendment is ratified, it now becomes part of the Constitution. Now, look at Art. III, Sec. 2 where it says the judicial power shall extend to all cases “arising under this Constitution”.

If a Balance Budget Amendment creates a budget (and it does) and defense spending is part of the budget (and it is), defense spending now “arises” under the Constitution, yes?  Is defense spending now possibly subject to judicial determination? How would you like to see defense spending differences end up in federal courts? What could possibly go wrong?

Still think amendments are a good idea?  We must not let desperation sideline our critical thinking skills!

The Constitutional Minute #16: Does the Constitution prohibit the existence of the EPA?

Yes!! Same goes for all other Executive Department offices which make “rules” for us.

Here’s why.

Under our Constitution, only CONGRESS may make laws.

See Article 1, Sec. 1, cl. 1.  Here it is:


“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”


Executive departments and agencies are not Congress!

The TSA, EPA, FCC, OSHA, FDA, Dept. of Education, Transportation, Labor, etc., etc. are unauthorized, unconstitutional, unlawful offices of the Executive Department, not Congress.


Additionally, our Constitution also does not give Congress permission to delegate their law-making authority to another branch. Congress alone is responsible for laws made.


Our Constitution is one of “enumerated powers only“.   That means that…..If a power is not listed for Congress, then Congress cannot do it!  Where in the Constitution is “environment” an enumerated power? Give Article, Section, and clause please.


When the EPA acts, they are unlawfully and unconstitutionally acting outside the powers We the People gave them!


…and we keep electing the same Congressmen who fund it?


To learn much more, go here or to


Bob Hilliard

Buffalo, Texas

Constitutional Minute #15   Roger Clements vs US Congress


In 2008, Roger Clements (one of the most successful power pitchers in history) was contacted by members of Congress and ordered to appear before a congressional committee on drug use in sports.

Mr. Clements foolishly complied. As a result, he was subsequently indicted on perjury, a completely unrelated charge. If he (or his attorney) had had a working knowledge of the Constitution, he would have advised Congress that he planned to ignore such a demand to appear until Congress can prove they have the lawful authority to address the subject of “drugs” or “sports”. They can’t because that authority does not exist.

The Constitution grants to Congress only limited powers to make criminal laws. Does Congress have the lawful authority to even address the subject of “sports” or “drugs” for the nation as a whole, or to make criminal laws on those subjects?  NO!!

 Thus, laws which claim to be of general application throughout the several States criminalizing acts respecting firearms, ammunition, hate crimes, environmental crimes, economic crimes, banking crimes, computer crimes, murder, kidnapping, narcotics, arson, extortion, etc. etc., etc., etc., etc., are all unconstitutional usurpations.

In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para).

 Note: Much of the federal criminal code of today consists of “laws” which are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such.  They are not “laws”, because they are outside the legislative powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

Here’s an authoritative paper on what criminal laws our federal government may lawfully and constitutionally address:

The Constitutional Minute #14: Is the Constitution a religious document? Did it have a biblical foundation?

  The fundamental act of our Founding, (the Declaration of Independence), recognizes the Creator God as the Source of Rights.

It acknowledges that the purpose of civil government is simply to “secure” the Rights God gave us.

The Constitution we subsequently ratified was based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible. Our US Constitution “secures” our God-given rights by limiting the scope of our federal civil government. Less government means more rights left to the people to exercise. More regulations = less rights exercised.

That is why our Country was the envy of the rest of the world since our founding. For the most part, we followed God’s model for civil government; other countries didn’t.

The blessing which flows from God’s model is limited civil government which is under The Law. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Lev. 25:10 – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

I encourage you to go online Here  or to:

The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution.

Please print this paper and give to your clergy.

 The Constitution is a theological document! Our clergy should know this and be able to defend God’s Word as expressed in our Constitution.

Our churches must declare independence from the federal government who ignores the Constitution and throw off the chains of the 501 (c) (3) tax exemptions!

God requires our clergy to take an active role in protecting the People from a civil government which violates the Higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution which is based on God’s Law.

Bob Hilliard

The Constitutional Minute #12 The Necessary and Proper Clause perversion


Doesn’t the ‘necessary & proper’ clause’  (“elastic clause” or

“sweeping clause” ) allow Congress to make any laws which the people in Congress think are ‘necessary & proper’?”


 Here it is – Article 1, Sec. 8, last clause:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Emphasis mine)

 Alexander Hamilton says the clause

  • merely gives to Congress a power to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para);
  • a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th para);


  • “The constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd para); and


  • thus, the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy. (Federalist No. 33, 4th para).


James Madison agrees with Hamilton’s explanation. (Federalist No. 44, 10th-17th paras).


In other words, the clause simply permits the execution of powers already declared and granted. Hamilton & Madison are clear that no additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.


Here’s more if want it. Scroll down to No. 10:



The Constitutional Minute # 11 The Interstate Commerce Clause perversion

Can the Interstate Commerce Clause be used by the federal government to regulate a product or service because it crosses State line?

Let us see if we can walk through this question in short order. Article I, Sec.8, clause 3, U.S. Constitution, says,

“The Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

 What does “regulate Commerce among the several States” mean?

First: What is “commerce”? Because words change meaning throughout time [“gay” once meant “jovial and lighthearted”], we must consult an old dictionary. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) defines commerce as:

“…an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

So!  “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods.

Now, we must find out what “regulate Commerce among the several States” means.

Two readily available authorities tell us:  The Federalist Papers (#22, #42, #44, & #56), and The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 kept by James Madison. Refer here for more:

These authorities prove that the purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause are (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

So! The evidence is ample, clear and unambiguous! The clause is not a blank check for Congress to fill out any way it wants!

Bob Hilliard


Constitutional Minute #9   What the heck is “Administrative Law”?  

   Now let’s address “administrative law” – i.e., rulemaking by Executive Agencies.


Most of the existing “federal” executive agencies are unconstitutional.  They meddle in matters which are not the business of the federal government, as power over the matters is not granted by our Constitution to the federal government. Those are powers left – reserved – to the States or the People!

Here are a few of the unconstitutional federal agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Education, Transportation, and Homeland Security.  Likewise for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy,  the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration, etc., etc., etc. Shocked??

Article I, Sec.1, U.S. Constitution, says:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

 That little phrase is of immense importance!! It means what it says; that only Congress may make laws! Laws are to be made only by Representatives whom we can fire every two years, and by Senators whom we can fire every six years.

But in Joseph Postell’s “must read” paper, “Constitution in Decline“, he shows that during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, Congress began delegating its lawmaking powers to agencies within the Executive Branch. They are not Congress!!

Since then, Congress passes an overall legislative scheme, and delegates the details to be written by un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats in the various Executive Agencies.  They write the “administrative rules” which implement the Legislation. The result is the execrable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is accepted, by the indoctrinated members of the Law profession, as “law”.

Shame rests additionally on our State legislators who refuse to interpose on our behalf and nullify all these unconstitutional federal encroachments by offering State nullification legislation!!


The Constitutional Minute #8 Enumerated Powers of the Judiciary


“Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only these cases:

  1. a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States
  2. b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party;
  3. c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

These are the ONLY cases which federal courts have constitutional authority to hear! Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, 8th para:

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. “[emphasis added]

Is “abortion” within the above “precise limits”? Where? Which Article, Section, and clause? How about gay marriage, prostitution, child sex, or drugs”? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope!

But the federal courts have evaded the constitutional limits on their power to hear cases by fabricating individual “constitutional rights” so that they can then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

Roe v. Wade (1973) is a good example.  Some of this can be confusing, but for study purposes, please go here:

Bob Hilliard



Constitutional Minute #7   Enumerated Powers of the President

Contrary to popular belief, the powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution.

In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks,

“…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?…” [emphasis added]

The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the dolts in Congress don’t make them obey it…and we keep electing those same members of Congress anyway.

The granting of the “executive Power” to the President is not a blank check giving him power to do whatever he wants.

The “executive Power” is merely the power to put into effect – to implement – those Acts of Congress which are within Congress’ enumerated powers.

In Federalist No. 75 (3rd para), Hamilton says,

“…The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate…” [emphasis added]

Thus, if Congress establishes a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” (as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), it is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the authorized laws Congress makes. The President is to carry out – to execute – lawful acts of Congress, not make up his own or to execute unconstitutional laws.

A thorough explanation of the President’s powers, including executive orders, is in this paper: Folks, these short articles (and internet links) represent a serious study on a serious subject. Please do not take lightly. Study like your future depends on it, because it does!