George Mason and Article V: The Untold Story

George Mason and Article V: The Untold Story

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Up until recently I supported calling an Article V Convention of the States as part of an effort to bring the Federal Government under control.  But I have recently changed my mind about this.  Here is why:

It was September 15, 1787, and after nearly four months the Constitutional Convention was drawing to a close.  As the convention was reviewing the language of Article V, George Mason a delegate from Virginia had a concern.  Mason had sought to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution at the Convention but had failed.  Mason’s concern was recorded in the official record as follows:

Col: Mason thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.

Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Gerry moved to amend the article so as to require a Convention on application of 2/3 of the Sts

Mr Madison did not see why Congress would not be as much bound to propose amendments applied for by two thirds of the States as to call a call a Convention on the like application. He saw no objection however against providing for a Convention for the purpose of amendments, except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum &c. which in Constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.

The motion of Mr. Govr Morris and Mr. Gerry was agreed to nem: con

But Mason was still not satisfied and refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights. 

Mason Continues His Campaign for a Bill of Rights

‘

Although the Bill of Rights with its Tenth Amendment was not yet part of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 45, Jan. 26, 1788:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

But these words were yet hollow because the Tenth Amendment was not yet part of the Constitution. 

 George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights

George Mason campaigned for and once again failed to get a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in June of 1788. 

Mason’s failed fight for a Bill of Rights inspired fellow Virginian James Madison to introduce it a year later during the First Congress in 1789, and it was ratified in 1791.  One year later George Mason died.

Mason is regarded as the father of the Bill of Rights and was the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights.

When we look at the whole picture, it appears Mason had been concerned at the Constitutional Convention that the Federal Government would never pass the Bill of Rights and he wanted to have a way that the States could add a Bill of Rights on their own.  This is clearly what he had in mind when he referred to “amendments of the proper kind” which could “be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

The Alien and Sedition Acts

In 1798 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.  These acts were clearly unconstitutional, threatening to prosecute or deport those who criticized the Federal government. 

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison reacted quickly, but what is especially telling is what they did not do.  They did not start a process of rallying the states to call for an Article V convention.  There would be no point in introducing an amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  Such an amendment had already been passed and ratified in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government was simply ignoring it.  Clearly passing amendments would not restrain the Federal Leviathan.

Instead Jefferson and Madison passed the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions laying down the groundwork to enforce the Constitution that they already had through interposition and nullification.  This is the method laid out in the currently proposed Texas Sovereignty Act, which, if passed, would facilitate Tenth Amendment enforcement (and enforcement of the rest of the Constitution as well. 

George Mason only intended his suggested revision to Article V as a means to allow the separate states to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights, because it did not yet have one.  However adding more amendments to a Constitution when the ones we already have are being ignored, would be as non productive as calling an Article V Convention of the States in the wake of the Alien and Seditions Acts.

Once the Bill of Rights was successfully added to the Constitution and were being ignored, George Mason would certainly have favored enforcing the Bill of Rights, not adding more amendments for the Federal Government to also ignore.

Very telling is Madison’s prescription for States brining an oppressive Federal government under control in Federalis Paper 46:

…should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

Madison here suggests four things:

1. The disquietude of the people;

2.  their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union;

3.  the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State;

4.  the embarrassments created by legislative devices

Notice he did not suggest calling for an Article V Convention of the States.

Proposed Amendments Could Undermine State Sovereignty

Some of the proposed amendments for an Article V convention would undermine many of the rights the states have right now. 

The Supreme Court has become the final interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they are.  The Supreme Court usurped this authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.  Nowhere does the Constitution assign this role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do,

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Article 6; Clause 2)

Note that it is the Constitution, not the federal government that is the “supreme law of the land”.  The Constitution is not the same thing as the federal government.  The Constitution is the instrument that creates and restrains the federal government, it is not the federal government itself.

The Constitution is also not the same thing as the Supreme Court.  And in fact the Supreme Court is not even mentioned in the Supremacy Clause.

To the contrary Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“…this [federal] government, created by this compact [the Constitution], was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

And James Madison wrote:

"…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them."
(James Madison; Virginia Resolution of 1798)

The Constitution is a compact between a given state, and the other states in the Union. Just as when two foreign powers, for example France and Great Britain enter into a compact, each party has a right to determine for itself its own understanding of the terms of the compact. Likewise each state maintains the right to determine for itself its own understanding of meaning of the terms of the Constitution. This does not conflict with the Supremacy Clause because it is the Constitution (but not the Federal Government ) which is the Supreme Law of the land.

Not only does the Constitution not mention the US Supreme Court in the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution indicates that it is State judges who are expected to determine if a state law is constitutional saying “…and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This means that the federal government (the Supreme Court included) does not have any power that the states have not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  No where in the Constitution do the states delegate to the Federal Government the power to determine for themselves whether or not they deem a state law to be Constitutional, or to determine for itself what it understands the Constitution to mean.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party;…”
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

Madison wrote in his Report of the Virginia Resolutions:

The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

(James Madison; Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798)

The 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform calls upon our state several times to single handedly exercise this Tenth Amendment power to enforce that Constitution in Texas and nullify unconstitutional federal acts including Supreme Court Rulings that Texas determines are unconstitutional.

  

However one amendment proposed by both Mark Levin and Gov. Greg Abbot would allow 2/3 of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  The problem is that under our current Constitution, if it were enforced, one state can override a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling that it finds unconstitutional right now.  This is the very process that Thomas Jefferson had initiated in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the very process that is laid out in the Texas Sovereignty Act, but a process that would be undermined by instead requiring 2/3 of the states to act together.

Another proposed amendment would require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.  The problem is that the Supreme Court has no such Constitutional power under a simple majority now.  They gave it to themselves in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison decision.  Since SCOTUS is not given this power in the Constitution, and since the Tenth amendment says the Federal government has no powers not delegated to in the Constitution, SCOTUS does not actually have this power (if we enforce the Constitution that we have).  But this amendment would give them this right that they don’t legitimately have now and substantially curb our current Tenth Amendment rights.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot says he wants to strengthen the Tenth amendment, yet these amendments would both undermine it. 

This would be like Jefferson and Madison responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts by calling for an Article V Convention to supposedly “strengthen” the First amendment, and then proposing amendments that actually allowed the Federal government the power to regulate speech as long as a super-majority in Congress supported it and 2/3 of the states did not overturn them! 

I believe that the best way for Texas to bring the Federal Government under control is to enforce the Constitution that we have now, rather than adding amendments when the ones we have are already ignored.  Certainly a prerequisite for adding amendments would be to enforce the ones that we have first.  However if we enforce the Constitution we have, then we likely would not need and Article V Convention of the States.

If we pass the Texas Sovereignty Act we would probably not need an Article V Convention, however some of the proposed amendments would undermine the power of the State of Texas to enforce the Constitution as laid out in the Texas Sovereignty Act.

Channukah at Valley Forge

Channukah at Valley Forge
by
James Scott Trimm

In December, 1778, General George Washington had supper at the home of Michael Hart, a Jewish merchant in Easton, Pennsylvania. It was during the Hanukkah celebration, and Hart began to explain the customs of the holiday to his guest. Washington replied that he already knew about Hanukkah. He told Hart and his family of meeting a Jewish soldier at Valley Forge the previous year. Hart's daughter Louisa wrote the story down in her diary.

The lights of the Hanukkah menorah had inspired General George Washington to forge on when everything looked bleak when his cold and hungry Continental Army camped at Valley Forge. Washington was walking among his troops when he saw one soldier sitting apart from the others, huddled over what looked like two tiny flames.

Washington approached the soldier and asked him what he was doing. The soldier explained that he was a Jew, a Polish immigrant who said he had fled his homeland because he could not practice his Jewish faith under the Prussian government there. He had lit the candles to celebrate Hanukkah, the festival commemorating the miraculous victory of his people so many centuries ago over the tyranny of a much better equipped and more powerful enemy who had sought to deny them their freedom. The soldier then expressed his confidence that just as, with the help of God, the Jews of ancient times were ultimately victorious, so too would they be victorious in their just cause for freedom. Washington thanked the soldier and walked back to where the rest of the troops camped, warmed by the inspiration of those little flames and the knowledge that miracles are possible.

The parallels with the American Revolution are obvious and these parallels were not lost on our founding fathers. Benjamin Rush, in his editorials denouncing the Tea Act, wrote:

What did not Moses forsake and suffer for his countrymen! What shining examples of patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, [the] Maccabees and all the illustrious princes, captains and prophets among the Jews.

Texas Sovereignty Syposium Held Last Night

The Texas Sovereignty Symposium

Yesterday night the Texas State Sovereignty Symposium was held in Hurst Texas.  State Representative Mark Keough (HD 15, Montgomery County) came to DFW to represent the Constitutional Restoration of State Sovereignty PAC (CROSS PAC).  Mr. Keough, James Scott Trimm, and Tom Glass spoke on how Texas can enforce the Tenth amendment against all three branches of the Federal Government including the US Supreme Court.

Two different are available of this very informative event:

Facebook Video

(Streamed by Faith Bussey)

YouTube Video

TX DPS Discriminates Against Home Schoolers, Vaccine Choice

 TX DPS Discriminates Against Home Schoolers, Vaccine Choice

By

James Scott Trimm

You wouldn't think this would happen in a conservative State like Texas, we have the best home schooling laws in the Country and we have the right to choose not to vaccinate our children.  But one State agency discriminates openly against both groups.

I have been trying for literally months to get a TX ID for my teenage daughter who has recently become a legal adult.  In order to get her ID we needed to get her lost Social Security card replaced.  That in itself took months, but was finally accomplished.

Today we went to DPS to get her ID.  Her Birth Certificate and Social Security Card were not enough.  The State has a list of other things that can be used to support the other documents. 

 Most of the items on the list are not things a teenage girl still in High School would have (no car registered in her name etc.)  The items on the list that are traditionally used to "support" the other documents for teenagers are "School records" or "immunization records". 

Of course those who exercise their right to vaccine choice in Texas do not have immunization records.  But that leaves "school records" and since home schools in Texas are legally private schools, we should be able to just bring some record of her homeschooling up to DPS and that should be accepted like any other legal school records.... right?  Wrong!  That requirement has a footnote saying "Document must be issued by an institution, entity or government agency from a US State, a US territory, the District of Columbia or a Canadian Province." 

DPS carefully and openly discriminates against Texas home schoolers!

It appears that after all of these months of effort, because we don't vaccinate and we home school, we will have to send off a voters registration for her in the mail (remember she just turned 18) and wait for it come in the mail before she can get an ID that we could have gotten today if we vaccinated or did not homeschool!  If she was not yet 18 she would not be able to get a voters registration to get a legal ID in Texas!

It is also strange that one can get a voters registration without showing ID and then use it as a "supporting document"  to get a Texas ID that then is used to vote.  While we need to have a voter ID law in Texas, that makes no sense.  Moreover we need to make it easier not harder to US citizens to get a Texas ID and not discriminate against those who practice vaccine choice and homeshool in Texas!

If you exercise vaccine choice and homeschool in Texas, good luck getting a Texas ID for your teenagers!

State Representative Mark Keough to speak in DFW on State Sovereignty

Come see Texas State Representative Mark Keough Speak on Texas State Sovereignty!

State Representative Mark Keough will be coming to DFW to represent the Constitutional Restoration of State Sovereignty PAC (CROSS PAC)!

Mark James Keough is a businessman and a Christian pastor, radio host, and educator from The Woodlands, Texas representing Texas House District 15 in suburban Montgomery County north of Houston.

You are all invited to this free Texas Sovereignty Symposium at the Brookside Convention center in Hurst, Dec. 8th at 6PM. Find out how Tenth Amendment enforcement legislation being introduced this legislative session could liberate Texas from Federal overreach in areas like Abortion, marriage, gun control, raw milk sales and much more! Plus a free dinner for the first 235 attendees! Don't miss this important opportunity to find out how we can free our state from overreach by the federal leviathon!

Speakers:

Texas State Representative Mark Keough will speak on behalf of CROSS PAC (Constitutional Restoration of State Sovereignty) http://www.crosspac.com/

James Scott Trimm - Member of the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee, Blogger on Texas politics.

 Tom Glass - Editor and redactor of the Texas Sovereignty Act Collaboration, Tenth Amendment advocate.

Register for this event FREE (click here)

Free Dinner for the first 235 Guests

Thursday December 8th, 2016
Dinner/Social 6:00PM
Meeting Starts 6:30PM
FREE Dinner courtesy of Lenny Lopez


Hurst Brookside Center
1244 Brookside Dr Hurst, TX 76053

Seating is limited to 235 people,
Dress: Casual

Tarrant GOP Endorses Texas Sovereignty

Tarrant GOP Endorses Texas Sovereignty

By

James Scott Trimm

The Tarrant County Republican Party has taken an official stand on Texas State Sovereignty and the enforcement of the tenth amendment by states.  Yesterday the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee passed a very strong resolution calling upon the Texas legislature to "pass binding legislation claiming and enacting the right of our state to judge for itself whether a state law is unconstitutional in regards to the US Constitution, or whether a federal law, policy, action or judicial ruling is unauthorized or undelegated by the U.S. Constitution."  The resolution also calls upon legislators representing parts of Tarrant County to "work together and with organizations and advocates in bringing about the passage of such legislation."

The resolution, which had previously been passed unanimously  by the Tarrant County Republican Party Resolutions Committee, reads as follows:

TEXAS SOVEREIGNTY LEGISLATION RESOLUTION - Be it resolved, that the Tarrant County Republican Party calls upon the Texas Legislature to pass binding legislation claiming and enacting the right of our state to judge for itself whether a state law is unconstitutional in regards to the US Constitution, or whether a federal law, policy, action or judicial ruling is unauthorized or undelegated by the U.S. Constitution.

Be it resolved, that the Tarrant County Republican Party calls upon the state legislators representing parts of Tarrant County to work together and with organizations and advocates in bringing about the passage of such legislation.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to every state legislator representing Tarrant County and to Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker of the House Joe Straus, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.
(Passed by the Executive Committee on Saturday November 12th)

Be it resolved, that the Tarrant County Republican Party calls upon the state legislators representing parts of Tarrant County to work together and with organizations and advocates in bringing about the passage of such legislation.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to every state legislator representing Tarrant County and to Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker of the House Joe Straus, and Attorney General Ken Paxton.
(Passed by the Executive Committee on Saturday November 12th)

The new resolution is the latest in a series of strongly worded statements coming from the Republican Party in Texas this year.  A similar statement had been made by Tarrant County's Nineth Senatorial District Convention in its 2016 Platform.

Both statements reflect the position of the Texas State Republican Party as stated in its 2016 Platform:

State Sovereignty- Pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government.  Therefore, federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

(Republican Party Platform for Texas 2016)

This official statement coming from the Tarrant County Republican Party is especially significant, as The Republican Party is the majority party in Texas, and Tarrant County is the largest (by population) red county in the State of Texas, and as such has more elected Republican legislators than any other county in Texas.

Texas State Representative Cecil Bell Jr. has just this week stated that he will in fact be filing a Texas Sovereignty Bill in the Texas House for the upcoming legislative session. 

Representative Bell is the founder of the Constitutional Restoration of State Sovereignty PAC.  The organizations website stays that it is "Most frequently recognized by its acronym CROSS PAC, the organization was founded in the summer of 2015 for the express purpose of “calling citizens to act in the common cause of restoring the sovereign power of the separate states and of the people.” CROSS PAC seeks to obtain this goal through a multi-tiered plan initiated at the grassroots level and extending to Washington DC."

A Free Texas Sovereignty Symposium is being held at the Brookside Center at 1244 Brookside Dr, Hurst, TX 76053, Hurst, Texas 76053 on Dec. 8th at 6 PM.  Form more information on this event click here.

For more info on the Texas Sovereignty Act, read my recent blog on the subject by clicking here.

And for more on CROSS PAC visit their website by clicking here,  

The Texas Sovereignty Act Unveiled

The Texas Sovereignty Act Unveiled
By
James Scott Trimm

Now more than ever the Texas Sovereignty Act is urgently needed!
(Click here to read the draft of the bill)

Less than a year ago, in July 2015, my wife was in the Hospital for nearly two weeks.  I had a lot of time to think, and during that time I formulated an idea called the "Texas Sovereignty Act."  Since that time the idea has caught on like wildfire. 


Unconstitutional Acts of the Federal Government

With the recent unconstitutional Supreme Court Rulings that claim a right of the federal government to require citizens to buy healthcare, to redefine marriage,  and to simply rewrite laws they do not like, people are asking, “Is the Supreme Court really the final authority on these matters?”

Even decades ago the US Supreme Court claimed the right to regulate abortion, claiming that there is a constitutional right to an abortion (though the Constitution never even mentions abortion).

The Executive branch engages in executive overreach, ignoring laws it does not like, and writing executive orders to create laws without congress, and without delegated authority.

The Legislative branch itself makes laws that are unconstitutional and for which it has no delegated authority.

Abortion, Obamacare, gay marriage, activist federal courts and executive overreach.... What if one Texas law could put Texans back in control of Texas?


How Did the Supreme Court Become Final Interpreter

The Supreme Court has become the final interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they are.  The Supreme Court usurped this authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.  Nowhere does the Constitution assign this role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do,


The Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Article 6; Clause 2)

Note that it is the Constitution, not the federal government that is the “supreme law of the land”.  The Constitution is not the same thing as the federal government.  The Constitution is the instrument that creates and restrains the federal government, it is not the federal government itself.

The Constitution is also not the same thing as the Supreme Court.  And in fact the Supreme Court is not even mentioned in the Supremacy Clause.

To the contrary Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“…this [federal] government, created by this compact [the Constitution], was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

And James Madison wrote:

"…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them."
(James Madison; Virginia Resolution of 1798)

The Constitution is a compact between a given state, and the other states in the Union. Just as when two foreign powers, for example France and Great Britain enter into a compact, each party has a right to determine for itself its own understanding of the terms of the compact. Likewise each state maintains the right to determine for itself its own understanding of meaning of the terms of the Constitution. This does not conflict with the Supremacy Clause because it is the Constitution (but not the Federal Government ) which is the Supreme Law of the land.

Not only does the Constitution not mention the US Supreme Court in the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution indicates that it is State judges who are expected to determine if a state law is constitutional saying “…and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”


The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This means that the federal government (the Supreme Court included) does not have any power that the states have not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  No where in the Constitution do the states delegate to the Federal Government the power to determine for themselves whether or not they deem a state law to be Constitutional, or to determine for itself what it understands the Constitution to mean.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party;…”
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

(The states also never delegated the authority to the federal government the power to regulate abortion, require its citizens to purchase healthcare, or define marriage.)


How do we Reclaim Sovereignty?

So how do we reclaim our state’s sovereignty?  How do we reclaim the right to determine for ourselves whether or not our state laws are constitutional?  How do we reclaim the right to be the final authority for our own state’s understanding of the Constitution?  Surely any law our state passes that reclaims its sovereignty will be declared unconstitutional by the federal government, since they have developed their own precedence on the issue.

The answer is, in much the same way that the Supreme Court claimed this authority for itself.  We simply say so.  We simply pass an act that, as a matter of enforceable and implemented law, Texas determines for itself whether or not our laws are Constitutional.

This means the federal courts will also have no power to find the Texas Sovereignty Act itself unconstitutional, because the law itself takes that decision out of their hands and places it in those of our state.

This is the only true path to Texas sovereignty.  Any effort that leaves the matter ultimately in the hands of federal courts will fail, because they will simply declare it unconstitutional (though their own usurped power to do so is itself unconstitutional).

We can no longer afford to pass meaningless non-binding sovereignty resolutions.  We can no longer afford to pass meaningless sovereignty or nullification laws, and then ask the federal courts if they are constitutional.

We must pass a Texas Sovereignty Act that claims for Texas the power to determine whether or not it, or any other Texas law is Constitutional, as well as determine for our own state whether or not federal laws or actions are constitutional (and especially if they are delegated powers or usurped powers).


Getting TSA into the State Platform

It has been truly a grassroots effort to bring this idea into the State GOP Party platform. It began with social media spreading the idea throughout the state.  Then many ordinary Texans brought the Texas Sovereignty Act Resolution to their Precinct Conventions on election day, where it was generally approved by voters and passed up to the County and Senatorial District Conventions.  At the ninth Senatorial District Convention the idea made it into the District platform in the following language:

We require the Texas Legislature to ignore, oppose, refuse, and nullify any act of any branch of the federal government which infringes upon the states' or people's Constitutionally protected rights in accordance with the 10th Amendment. And we also require the Texas Legislature to pass binding legislation claiming and enacting the right of our state to judge for itself whether a state law is unconstitutional, or whether a federal law, policy, action or ruling is unauthorized or undelegated by the U.S. Constitution.  Police power is reserved to the states by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, all federal law enforcement activities conducted in Texas must be conducted under the auspices of the county sheriff with jurisdiction in that county.

This platform report was then passed up to the State GOP Convention where language supporting the Texas Sovereignty Act was passed in a plank of the Texas GOP State Party Platform.  The 2014 platform merely said:

 Reaffirm Texas Sovereignty as Reserved Under the 10th Amendment, United States Constitution - We strongly urge the Texas Legislature ignore, oppose, refuse, and nullify any federal mandated legislation which infringes upon the states' 10th Amendment Right. All federal enforcement activities in Texas must be conducted under the auspices of the county sheriff with jurisdiction in that county.

Bu the new 2016 platform, influenced by the Texas Sovereignty Act movement reads as follows:

State Sovereignty- Pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government.  Therefore, federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

The new platform now goes much farther calling not just for the nullification of undelegated federal legislation, but also for nullification of undelegated federal judiciary rulings as well!

In fact Texas sovereignty permeates the 2016 Texas GOP Platform, calling for Texas to apply the tenth amendment to all three branches of government in its planks on Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Rights.



The Republican Party of the State of Texas has now officially taken the position that the U.S. Supreme Court is not the exclusive or final interpreter of the Constitution and that the State of Texas can and should "nullify" "All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution". 


Where Do We Go Next?

Where do we go next?  The final step is to take the Texas Sovereignty Act to the 85th Legislative session.
And I am pleased to report that a draft of the Texas Sovereignty Act is ready!

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD AND READ THE 2017 TEXAS SOVEREIGNTY ACT


Tell your State Representative, your State Senator, our Governor and Lieutenant Governor that you want them to support the Texas Sovereignty Act.  Tell your friends.  Like the Texas Sovereignty Act Facebook page and invite your friends to like it.

Like the Texas Sovereignty Act Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/TexasSovereigntyAct

 Onward!

Special thanks to my friend Tom Glass who put a good deal of work into helping me in crafting the idea of the Texas Sovereignty Act into this actual piece of legislation. 

A Very Personal Message

A Very Personal Message

Friends, Some of you may have noticed a change in me in recent weeks, there are a lot of stressful things going on in my life right now. I cannot tell you about them all right now for several reasons. Foremost because some of them are very personal (nothing for which myself or my family bear any shame, but personal none the less).

Some of you may have noticed the effects of this stress on me. When we told my cousin about these issues she wrote back saying:

"I could tell Scott's spirit and countenance has been affected these past few months...this explains it!"

I wish I could tell you more right now, but I just can't.

But let me assure you that my marriage has never been stronger, so that is not an issue. My wife and I definitely have a very united front in struggling through these crises. Looking back on my life as a young man, I definitely dated a lot of the wrong girls (what was I thinking?!), but thank goodness 26 years ago, I ended up marrying the right woman. There is no one else I would want by my side as we face these life struggles.

I will be honest with you, some of the struggles we face can be solved with money (and we so appreciate those who financially support my literal "labor in the Word") but others can only be solved by time, justice and the healing of wounded souls. 

Please keep my family in your prayers.

James Scott Trimm 

Under Radar Effort to Make Tarrant Precinct 1 "Wet"

Under Radar Effort to Make Tarrant Precinct 1 "Wet "
By
James Scott Trimm 

Several cities (or parts of cities) in Tarrant County in Precinct 1, including Grapevine, Roanoke, Haltom City, Richland Hills, Watauga, and Hurst will have a proposition on the November 8th ballot to allow the sale of hard liquor and package stores. If the proposition passes as proposed in Precinct 1 city councils will have little control on the location of such stores, and for the first time ever we will have liqueur stores opening up on the street corners of our neighborhoods here in Precinct 1.

The effort to make our precinct "wet" has been done under the radar.  It is not on the ballot because citizens of our precinct organized themselves to bring liquor stores to our neighborhoods.   This measure is on the ballot because a paid organization used paid workers to canvas our voting locations at our last primary election. These paid workers got paid based on signatures gathered and pressured people to sign their petition saying that it was not a petition to introduce such sales to our precinct, but only a petition to let people have the right to vote on it (misleading). I was working my polling location (Hurst Hills Elementary School)  for candidates and I observed as these paid workers were so aggressive that they were crossing the poling place parameter line and even obstructing traffic in and out of the poling place.  The Election Judge for this voting precinct (3176) had to get involved, the Hurst Police were called and had to make it clear to these over aggressive workers that they were to respect the "line" and refrain from blocking traffic in and out of the voting location. 

Let me be clear, I am a proponent of liberty, but this vote is not about whether such sales should be regulated.  These sales always have been regulated by precinct and Precinct 1 has always been dry.  I might take a different position on complete a vote for complete deregulation of liquor sales statewide, but that is not the issue here.  The issue here is should Precinct 1 be sacrificed as "wet" (which normally brings a higher crime rate, more drunk drivers etc,.) while other precincts remain "dry" and enjoy lower crime rates at our expense. 

This is effectively a zoning issue.  Unfortunately the system Texas uses for making these decisions is somewhat archaic and ignores cities (which normally handle zoning) and makes no sense in Urban and Suburban areas where Precinct lines frequently divide cities.  In this case the line divides my city (Hurst) and groups part of Hurst with Haltom City and other cities.  (And I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to change this.)

In the end, as long as some precincts are wet and some are dry, in that context of the regulation that currently exists, I believe it is in the best interests of Precinct 1 to remain "dry" and I encourage everyone in our precinct to vote "NO" to this proposition and to spread the word to your neighbors.

Stadium Yes Group’s Desperate Conspiracy Theory

Stadium Yes Group’s Desperate Conspiracy Theory

By

James Scott Trimm

Ever since the Tarrant County Republican Party took an official position against Arlington’s New Stadium proposition, the “Yes” group has complained that most of the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee members do not actually live in Arlington.  This is actually a non issue, as most members do not actually live in any given House District in Tarrant County, but the County party still gets involved in these races.  For the Tarrant GOP this is simply a matter of principles of lower taxes and against corporate welfare, which are spelled out in the Texas GOP Party Platform, principles which the Executive Committee believes should be applied to every level of government.

The “Yes” group, rather than debating the actual issues that have drawn the majority political party of Tarrant County into taking a principled position against this proposition, have begun chanting the mantra “outsiders”. 

Now this mantra of “outsiders” has been developed by the “Yes” group into a full blown conspiracy theory of ridiculous proportions.  The new “door hanger” being put on Arlington doors by the “Yes” campaign says:

"Don't be misled by negative minsinformation being spread by people from outside Arlington who would like to  send our hometown rangers to downtown Dallas."

In context of the ongoing dialog on this issue, the “Yes” group is strongly implying that the Tarrant County Republican Party is involved in a secret conspiracy with the city of Dallas (which is in Dallas County) to steal the Rangers away to downtown Dallas… despite the fact that not one member or the Tarrant GOP Executive Committee lives in Dallas, or even in Dallas County.  This is a bizarre conspiracy theory that ignores the fact that the Tarrant County Republican Party is acting on principles which it laid out in its resolution proclaiming its position against the stadium.  

Take off the tin hats folks, the Tarrant GOP is taking a principled stand against more taxes and against corporate welfare! 

To the contrary it appears that the Yes group has hired a campaign consultant who lives in Sunnyvale Texas (in Dallas County, the other side of Dallas from Arlington) and appears to be the group which has brought in an Austin based firm which has run an advertisement hiring people to knock on doors and put out signs.  Should we feel confident that these paid door knockers are all Arlington residents?  It seems that the “Yes” campaign has no business at all complaining about “outsiders”. 

Which campaign is motivated by principle and which is motivated by the all mighty dollar? 

Tarrant GOP Rocks Boat, Opposes Stadium!

Tarrant GOP Rocks Boat, Opposes Stadium!

By

James Scott Trimm

Last night (9-27-2016) the Communications Committee of the Tarrant County Republican Party met to decide how best to support the Save Our Stadium effort in Arlington Texas.  The committee voted to implement several substantive measures to support the Save Our Stadium cause.

But why does the Tarrant County GOP care about this Stadium deal?  It has been suggested by some that the Tarrant County GOP could lose big money donors because of its opposition to a deal by which certain rich and powerful persons stand to profit.  Some establishment Republicans have even suggested that the Tarrant GOP should put money over principles and avoid such divisive topics.  But I am delighted to say that we have an amazing Executive Committee in the Tarrant County Republican Party that is unwilling to sell out conservative principles. 

The Texas GOP platform stands firmly against new taxes, corporate welfare and crony capitalism!  These principles were clearly declared by the TC GOP Executive Committee in its resolution in opposition to the new stadium deal which quotes the 2016 Texas Republican Party platform as the basis for the resolution:

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform Preamble states: “We understand that our economic success depends upon free market principles;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform Principles state that Texas Republicans believe in a “free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform states “We encourage government to divest its ownership of all business that should be run in the private sector and allow the free market to prevail. We oppose all bailouts of domestic and foreign government entities, states and all businesses, public and private. We oppose local government handouts to businesses and other private entities in the name of economic development;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform further states “We believe that the borrower truly is a slave to the lender, and so long as we continue to increase our tax and debt burdens we will never be a truly free people;” and,

Whereas, the Arlington City Council has voted to place a proposition entitled Proposition One on the November 8th, 2016 ballot which violates all the above, and further offends good government principals to be good stewards by allowing Globe Life Park to be demolished and replaced by a far more expensive and smaller stadium that will be funded primarily by more than $500 million dollars from taxpayers; and,

Whereas, Proposition One adds debt and taxes to private citizens and principally offends Republican core values and our platform,

Be It Therefore Resolved, the Tarrant County Republican Party opposes Proposition One as it will appear on the November 8th, 2016 ballot in the City of Arlington, and directs our County Party Chair to utilize reasonable Party resources to assist efforts to oppose this government handout.

I am proud to be a part of the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee, and proud to say that we have ignored the voices of the Establishment that would have us sell out our principles in favor of money!

The TC GOP rocks the boat and sticks with its principles!  

Arlington Tea Party Melts Down Over Stadium Endorsement

Arlington Tea Party Melts Down Over Stadium Endorsement

By

James Scott Trimm

On September 8^th the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee, in keeping with principles laid out in the Texas State Republican platform, voted overwhelmingly to oppose a proposal in Arlington to replace the perfectly good ballpark “Global Life” stadium with a smaller new stadium with fewer seats and a retractable roof, as follows.

The passage of this resolution was a major victory for the Save Our Stadium cause! 

The very next day four members of the Board of Directors of the Arlington Tea Party took hypocrisy to new levels.  These “Taxed Enough Already” group “leaders” voted for advocating new taxes, voting to turn their back on conservatism and support the crony capitalism of the new stadium proposal, making the following announcement:

Having considered the issue, we believe the real long term benefits to the City of Arlington far outweigh the arguments to the contrary. The Arlington Tea Party Board of Directors by a majority vote announces our support the for new retractable roof baseball stadium for Arlington. We simply urge all Arlington residents vote YES on the issue on the November 8th ballot.

Mel Moss, Chairman & founder, Jeff Rogers - Board member, Craig Ownby - Board member, Josh Finkenbinder - Board member
Dan Fernandez, President

According to Kelly Canon, who was at the time Vice President of the Arlington Tea Party, this vote was secretly taken at a secret meeting from which she was excluded.  The vote was also outside of the authority of the Board because it was in complete opposition to the stated purpose of the Arlington Tea Party.  The stated purpose of this 501c3 organization is to support “lower taxes” while the Stadium Deal entails new taxes, the exact opposite!  

While the group pushing for a new stadium has put out campaign materials claiming that the proposition includes “no new taxes”, this is in direct contradiction to the statement on the Arlington Texas city website.  In fact the only reason this stadium is going up for an election is because it involves new taxes, if no new taxes were involved the Arlington City Council could have done this without an election.

On September 9^th these Board members announced their vote and on September 10^th they posted it on the Lone Star Tea Party Facebook page.  (The Lone Star Tea Party is a 501c4 organization created by the Arlington Tea Party).  The announcement was met with dozens of negative comments from Arlington Tea Party followers, and a mass exodus of the “membership” (followers) began, with members like Warren Norred announcing their resignations. The Arlington Tea Party was in complete melt down.  Vice President Kelly Canon posted the following response:

Ten days later the former members (followers) of the Arlington Tea Party, under the leadership of the former Arlington Tea Party Vice President Kelly Canon, reorganized under the new name SE Tarrant TeaParty.  The longtime Arlington Tea Party Facebook group (with its 448 members) has now become the “SE Tarrant Tea Party” and retains the original purpose of opposing more taxes and corporate welfare which the majority of the remaining “Board Members” of the old Arlington Tea Party have now abandoned.  

Tarrant County GOP Will Assist Effort to Oppose Stadium Deal

Tarrant County GOP Will Assist Effort to Oppose Stadium Deal

By

James Scott Trimm

Early on in his campaign our new Republican County Chair announced his intention to get the Tarrant County GOP more involved in municipal issues.  At the 9/12 Candidate Forum Tim O'Hare said:

One of the things I want to do if I am the county chairman is I want to make sure that every Republican that goes to go vote in a school board election or a municipal election knows the voting records of the candidates.  And lots of people will say "those races are nonpartisan.”  Well here's the deal: I think we have figured out that when Democrats go to vote in school board elections and city council elections, they know who the Democrats are. People in this room probably know who the Republican candidates are.  But for the general masses, they don't.  And we need to change that.  ... we have got to make sure that we elect good strong Conservatives at the school board level and the City Council level.

(Tim O'Hare; Fort Worth 9/12 Candidate Forum Aug. 17th 2015)

While municipal elections are billed as “non partisan” and as such voters often do not know with which political party a candidate affiliates and thus what their underlying political philosophy is.  This is a serious problem because as conservatives we have a core set of values and beliefs about the limited role of government, and personal liberty, which serve as our guide.  And these principles are applicable on every level of government, including municipal government.  Unfortunately it is often on the municipal level that government intrusion on our rights occurs most.  Oftentimes our conservative State Representatives will defeat an intrusive piece of legislation, only to have our city governments pass the same intrusive measure as a city ordinance with the city council complaining that the state had failed to do anything.  Of course choosing not to do anything, or to kill a bad bill, is choosing less government and more freedom. 

Because of the fact that liberals have so often come in the back door in Tarrant County and infiltrated our municipal governments, we have ended up with tax, borrow and spend city councils.  For example my own city council in Hurst has run up 100 million dollars in debt!  Lets illustrate home much money we are talking about in physical cash. If you laid the bills from end to end, they would reach from Hurst City Hall to the International Space Station… and back… forty one times!  If you laid it out end to end the Hurst debt would reach from Los Angeles to New York… and back… TWICE!  Or from Hurst to London… and back again! 

Folks, the tax borrow and spend machines in our Tarrant County cities must be stopped.  If they keep expanding this massive debt, the math will eventually crush us with interest!  As Ronald Reagan once said:

Balancing the budget is a little like protecting your virtue:

You just have to learn to say “no.”

(Remarks at Kansas State University at the Alfred M. Landon Lecture Series on Public Issues (September 9, 1982))

The time has come to apply our conservative principles to our municipal governments in Tarrant County, and it is time for the Tarrant County Republican Party to get directly involved in City politics. 

The Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee took a profound step in this direction this week by passing a resolution officially taking a stand against a proposal in Arlington to replace the perfectly good ballpark “Global Life” stadium with a smaller new stadium with fewer seats and a retractable roof, as follows:

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform Preamble states: “We understand that our economic success depends upon free market principles;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform Principles state that Texas Republicans believe in a “free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform states “We encourage government to divest its ownership of all business that should be run in the private sector and allow the free market to prevail. We oppose all bailouts of domestic and foreign government entities, states and all businesses, public and private. We oppose local government handouts to businesses and other private entities in the name of economic development;” and,

Whereas, the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform further states “We believe that the borrower truly is a slave to the lender, and so long as we continue to increase our tax and debt burdens we will never be a truly free people;” and,

Whereas, the Arlington City Council has voted to place a proposition entitled Proposition One on the November 8th, 2016 ballot which violates all the above, and further offends good government principals to be good stewards by allowing Globe Life Park to be demolished and replaced by a far more expensive and smaller stadium that will be funded primarily by more than $500 million dollars from taxpayers; and,

Whereas, Proposition One adds debt and taxes to private citizens and principally offends Republican core values and our platform,

Be It Therefore Resolved, the Tarrant County Republican Party opposes Proposition One as it will appear on the November 8th, 2016 ballot in the City of Arlington, and directs our County Party Chair to utilize reasonable Party resources to assist efforts to oppose this government handout.

(In full disclosure, I was one of the precinct chairs who votes in favor of this resolution).

The passage of this resolution is a major coup for the Save Our Stadium cause!  With the passage of this resolution the Save our Stadium cause can now expect official support from the Tarrant County Republican Party.  The Tarrant GOP can now help by doing things like issuing a press release, sending out an email asking for volunteers and donations, providing meeting space and opening up use of the TCGOP phone banks.

Meanwhile the Arlington Tea Party has taken hypocrisy to new levels.  This supposedly “Taxed Enough Already” group is now advocating new taxes, recently voting to turn their back on conservatism and support the crony capitalism of the new stadium proposal. 

The group pushing for the new stadium has made many statements that are patently false in their political advertising.  They have claimed that Arlington must build this new stadium to keep the Rangers from leaving Arlington.  But the truth is that the Texas Rangers cannot leave Arlington for the better part of a decade even if they wanted to do so, because the still have eight years on their current performance contract with Arlington.  Moreover no one has presented any evidence that the Rangers have threatened to leave in the first place.  The group pushing for a new stadium has also put out campaign materials claiming that the proposition includes “no new taxes” in direct contradiction to the statement on the Arlington Texas city website.  In fact the only reason this stadium is going up for an election is because it involves new taxes, if no new taxes were involved the Arlington City Council could have done this without an election.

Of course the current stadium does not need to be replaced.  In fact when the original Arlington Stadium, which was (unlike the current stadium) in poor condition and needed to be replaced, was torn down and replaced.  The city spent extra money to build the new stadium so that it could last a hundred years without having to be replaced again.  Yet now they want to waste that money by scrapping that new stadium after an even shorter lifetime than Arlington Stadium had! 

This is not just an Arlington issue.  If you eat or shop in Arlington this is a tax on YOU.  Also this proposition would change how property is used that would lower property tax revenue to Tarrant County which affects everyone who lives in or pays taxes in Tarrant County.  Cities are themselves creations of State Government as well, so if you are a Texas resident, what Arlington does is your business, because Arlington itself is a creation of your State Government.  So if a creation of your state government is going to raise taxes on things you buy (when you shop or eat in Arlington) and also impact your counties budget, they that is absolutely your business!  Do not let anyone tell you that if you don’t live in Arlington this is none of your business!