The American Wiki

Publius Huldah is the pseudonym used by right-wing legal commentator, Joanna Martin.[1][2] On her blog, Publius Huldah frequently gives legal and constitutional opinions. She is one of the leading advocates against an Article V Convention of States. She is a proponent of Nullification.[3] Her writing gained prominence in the rise of the Article V Convention movements, and she has given written and verbal testimony to multiple state legislatures on the matter.[4]

Personal life[]

Publius Huldah is the pseudonym used by internet blogger Joanna Martin.[5] She received an undergraduate degree in philosophy with special focus on epistemology and political philosophy.[6] In 1973, after attending the Florida State University of Law and getting her Juris Doctorate, Martin was admitted to the Florida Bar. Her membership has since lapsed. [7]

Martin is married to Frank Scutari.[8][9] In the 1980s, Frank was accused of aiding and abetting his brother Richard Scutari with crimes relating to both The Order, a white nationalist organization, and Alan Berg murder as well as the Aryan Nations, an anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi,[10] white supremacist[11] terrorist organization. [12] According to the Sun Sentinel, Frank Scutari set up a network of rented offices that his brother Richard and other fugitives from The Order and Aryan Nations could use to communicate with each other.[12] After being arrested in February 1985, he was convicted and served three years in prison.[13] Martin served as Frank Scutari's divorce lawyer in 1988. Frank and Joanna married in 1989.[14]

Legal opinions[]

Publius Huldah promotes Christian Reconstructionism and claims that the Bible is the foundation of the Constitution.[15] She claims that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to Muslims.[16] However, Huldah is most famous for her opinions on an Article V Convention. She summed up her position in a speech at Falls Church, VA in March 2018 saying, "A Convention gives the enemies of our constitution the opportunity to get rid of it and impose a new one."[17] She claims that any "convention to propose amendments" as prescribed by the Constitution would turn into a convention to rewrite the constitution.


Many critics of Huldah claim that she looks at the evidence selectively. She often claims in speeches and testimony that an Article V Convention "made James Madison tremble;"[18] however, her critics point out that James Madison actually fought hard and argued in support of ratification of the constitution with Article V and the option to have a "convention for proposing amendments." Huldah's main claim is that at a convention, the mode of ratification can be changed. She states that the convention can decide that only 1/2 of states ratifying the amendment makes it a valid pieces of the US Constitution or even national popular vote ratification.[19] However, critics point out that the Constitution clearly states in Article V that an amendment coming out of an Article V Convention

...shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when [or once] ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

These critics state that the Constitution doesn't allow the Conventions to change the mode of ratification for the very amendment they propose. A new mode of ratification must be ratified. [20]


  9. ""
  12. 12.0 12.1"
  14. ""
  15. ""
  20. {