Texas Bill Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

Texas Bill Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

By

James Scott Trimm

Today Texas State Representative Bill Zedler (who is normally a friend to the Constitution) filed House Bill 1060 which would require electoral college electors in Texas to "vote for the candidates for president and vice president receiving the most votes in the general election for state and county officers of this state."  And any elector who violates this law would be jailed on felony charges!

This Bill is flatly unconstitutional.  Article II, Section 1; Clause 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

(Article II, Section 1 ; Clause 3)

This was amended by the 12^th amendment which reads in part “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President…”

The Constitution is clear that the electors are empowered to “vote.”  What does “vote” mean? 

Well according to Webster’s 1806 (first edition) Dictionary published just nineteen years after the Constitutional Convention “vote” was understood to mean “to give or choose by votes, n. a voice”  

Dictionary.com defines “vote” to mean “to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot.”

The current Webster’s Dictionary Definition of “vote” is “a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially :  one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “vote” as follows: “Suffrage; the expression of his will, preference, or choice, formally manifested by a member of a legislative or deliberative body, or of a constituency or a body of qualified electors, in regard to the decision to be made by the body as a whole upon any proposed measure or proceeding, or the selection of an officer or representative. And the aggregate of the expressions of will or choice, thus manifested by individuals, is called tlie "vote of the body."

Most importantly we can look to Federalist Paper 68 to see clearly what the original intent of the framers was in regards to the power to vote granted to the members of the electoral college:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

(Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper 68)

Here it is clear that the original intent of the framers was that the electors be confided with trust.  It is also clear that the original intent that the electors engage in analysis, deliberation, investigation and discernment in making a vote which is specifically “their choice.”  

This bill therefore violates the stated principles of the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform:

"... we support the strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas."
(Texas 2016 Republican Party Platform)

This bill would violate the constitution by making the electors mere messengers and transferring the power to investigate, deliberate, exercise discernment and choose to a popular election.  This being in direct conflict with the original intent of the Framers as set for above in Federalist Paper 68 which specifically says:

 A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

The Framers empowered the electors with this power to vote specifically because they did not want the "general mass" voting for the president!

Zedler’s Bill would literally make it a felony for an elector to follow the US Constitution and “vote” in the sense which is clearly that of the original intent of the framers!  Furthermore it proposes to throw people in jail for voting other than the way the State requires them to vote!  (Now that is scary).

Immediately after the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin declared that the Framers had delivered to us “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  This bill plays into Progressive efforts to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Direct Democracy. 

I call upon State Representative Zedler to withdraw this blatantly unconstitutional bill.  This bill does not reflect the love and support for the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Framers, which you espouse.  I love you Representative Zedler, but I do not love HB 1060.  I also call upon all Constitution loving members of the Texas State Legislature to oppose this unconstitutional bill.

Bill Filed to Finally End Abortion in Texas

Bill Filed to Finally End Abortion in Texas

By

James Scott Trimm

In June of 2016 SCOTUS overturned large portions of Texas' anti-abortion omnibus law (HB 2). 

The majority 5-3 ruling strikes down two provisions of House Bill 2, the Pro-Life Omnibus Bill of the 2013 Legislative Session, which require abortion mills to operate as Ambulatory Surgical Centers and which require abortionists to possess hospital admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius of the abortion mill before committing abortions.

The provision in the law which protects preborn children -- who science shows feel pain at 20 weeks -- was not challenged and continues to save lives in Texas.

This ruling comes, despite the fact that no branch of the federal government has delegated power under the US Constitution, over the regulation of safety of medical procedures or facilities, or over the licensing of medical personal or facilities.  Therefore, under the tenth amendment these powers are retained by the states.

The supposed "right to an abortion" is not found in the US Constitution and is an invention of SCOTUS.  The right to life, however, is guaranteed by the ninth amendment which must certainly encompass the the inalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" referenced in the Declaration of Independence., and the 14th amendment which states that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  This right must extend to the unborn because the Preamble of the US Constitution states ""We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  By definition "our Posterity" are the unborn, so all Constitutional protections must apply to the unborn.

It is time for Texas to demand our Tenth Amendment rights!

The Texas State Republican Platform for 2016 boldly proclaims concerning abortion:

"Abolish Abortion- We call upon the Texas Legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life."

But how can the Texas Legislature enact legislation abolishing abortion in Texas?  What about Roe v. Wade?  Hasn’t the US Supreme Court ruled that there is a Constitutional right to an abortion?  What about today's ruling?

Well as the platform says, there is a way for Texas to “to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.”  That way involves reclaiming our Texas Sovereignty, as the Platform elsewhere states:

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.

This week Texas State Representative Tony Tinderholt filed a bill (HB 948) in the Texas House that would follow these directives to end abortion in Texas!

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 framers stated that the US Constitution is a compact between the member states, and that as such, each state has equal standing in determining for itself the meaning of the Constitution.  The tenth amendment states that the states and the people retain all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution did the states delegate to any branch of the federal government the power to be the ultimate and final interpreter of the Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause never mentions the Supreme court, but appears to indicate that state judges would make these judgments.(You can read more about this by clicking here)

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.  This has been called the Goliad approach to sovereignty.  You surrender to the authority you were fighting, ask for mercy and are slaughtered in return.

HB 948 clarifies in the Texas Family Code that personhood and the rights that go along with it begin at fertilization, not birth, and removes contrary definitions throughout Texas statutes.  This bill also removes the exemptions from the Penal Code for murder if the person committing the offense is the mother of an unborn child or a physician if the death of the child is the intended result.

Most importantly HB 948 requires that the Texas Attorney General and local governments enforce this law in Texas regardless of any federal action or court rulings, and prohibits the State of Texas from legitimizing any federal court proceedings by making any appearances related to this law in Federal court.

This means the federal courts will also have no power to find HB 948 unconstitutional, because the law itself takes that decision out of their hands.

This is the only way to end abortion in Texas.  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).

Yes we can nullify Roe v. Wade in Texas!  We must urge Texas Legislature to pass HB 948.

This is how we can finally end abortion in Texas!  Remember Goliad!

Thank you Texas State Representative Tony Tinderholt for having the courage to file this landmark bill!

Is Eliminating No-Fault Divorce a Liberty Issue?

 

Is Eliminating No-Fault Divorce a Liberty Issue?

By

James Scott Trimm

We live in a disposable culture.  We have disposable razors, disposable dinnerware, disposable diapers, disposable lighters and disposable pens.  Snapchat allows users to share disposable images that are explicitly short-lived and self-deleting.

Through the magic of no-fault divorce, Texas has developed what could only be regarded as “disposable marriages”.  The sad fact is that forty three percent of Texas marriages end in divorce.  And the vast majority of divorces in Texas are “no fault” divorces.  The result is that a marriage in Texas is a less binding agreement than a mundane business contract.  One cannot just decide to walk away from his obligations under a business contract with a “no fault” exit, leaving the other party without recourse.  So why is a marriage which should be a much more sacred commitment so much less binding?

Marriage should normally be a lifetime bond, and only under rare, extraordinary circumstances should it end in divorce.  The University of Texas conducted a study that found that 33% of divorced spouses felt that they had not done enough to save their marriage. The same study also found that children of divorced couples are more likely to be prone to depression, arrests, addiction, and childhood sexual abuse.

Texas State Representative Matt Krause has filed a bill that would end “no fault” divorce in Texas, making marriage, once a again, a serious commitment and less “disposable”. 

Some have tried to spin this as a “liberty” issue.  I have even seen one meme from a liberty activist, showing an abused woman and implying Krause’s bill would require her to endure three years of abuse before leaving him.  This is completely dishonest.  Texas allows a spouse to sue for a “fault” divorce for cause of adultery, abandonment, cruelty, felony conviction, living apart for at least three years, or confinement to a mental hospital.  Krause’s Bill would simply eliminate no fault divorce. Because cruelty is cause for a fault divorce in Texas, such a woman could get a fault divorce on that very basis. 

It is well known that I am a big proponent of “liberty” within the Republican Party.  But this is not a liberty issue.  Everyone who enters a marriage in Texas does so of their own free will, and should do so with a mind that they are entering a union intended to be a lifetime bond. It is not a “liberty” issue when a person under contract cannot simply choose to, without cause, walk away from his contractual obligations under a business contract, leaving the other party with no recourse.  This bill would simply restore the idea that marriage is a serious commitment that means something, not merely a disposable relationship with less meaning than a business contract.