Sunday, October 16, 2016

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 Green who put a good deal of work into crafting he idea of the Texas Sovereignty Act into this actual piece of legislation. 


Saturday, October 15, 2016

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 


Thursday, October 13, 2016

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.








Sunday, October 2, 2016

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?