Thursday, February 23, 2017

The Texas Sovereignty Act Was Filed Today!



The Texas Sovereignty Act Was Filed Today!
By
James Scott Trimm




Today Texas State Representative Cecil Bell Jr. filed the Texas Sovereignty Act, Texas House Bill 2338, a bill that will facilitate the enforcement of the Tenth Amendment in Texas!


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.  Nowhere 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 the federal government has developed its 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 the hands of the federal government 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).


HB 2338 is a Texas GOP Platform Item

The new 2016 platform calls for a bill like Texas HB 2338 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 platform now goes much farther calls 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 the platform planks on Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Rights.



Where Do We Go Next?


Tell your State Representative that you want them to coauthor and support Texas HB 2338.  Tell your State Senator that you want them to file a companion to HB 2338 in the Texas Senate. 

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!



Friday, February 17, 2017

Its Time for Constitutional Carry in Texas





Its Time for Constitutional Carry in Texas
By
James Scott Trimm


House Bill 375, filed by conservative hero Jonathan Stickland would finally allow Texans the right to carry a firearm without a state “license”, and without paying a fee to purchase this “right from the state, a concept known commonly as “constitutional carry.”

The Tarrant County Republican Party has taken an official stand on Constitutional Carry.   The Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee passed (on 11/12/16) a very strong resolution calling upon the Texas legislature to “pass constitutional carry legislation.”  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 constitutional carry legislation.”

The resolution, which I myself had proposed to the committee, reads as follows:

Resolution in Support of Constitutional Carry Legislation

Be it resolved, that the Tarrant County Republican Party calls upon the Texas Legislature to pass constitutional carry legislation.

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 constitutional carry legislation.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to every state legislator representing Tarrant County.

The 2016 Texas Republican Platform states “We collectively urge the legislature to pass ‘constitutional carry’ legislation, whereby law abiding citizens that possess firearms can legally exercise their God given right to carry that firearm as well.”

Moreover the 2016 Texas Republican Platform lists as a legislative priority a directive for the Texas Legislature to “Pass constitutional carry while maintaining licensing as optional for reciprocity purposes.”

In order to understand the need for Constitutional Carry, I thought it would be helpful to compare the way we treat the right to bear arms right, to the way other rights (or so-called “rights”) are treated.  When we do so, I think you will see that a certain hypocrisy becomes obvious.

Lets begin with an apocryphal pseudo-right, the right to an education.  (This is not a true “right” if one understands what a “right” actually is, but that is a whole different blog).

If the right to bear arms was treated like the so-called right to an education, we would not only be allowed to own a fire arm, we would be required to own one, and if we could not afford a fire arm, one would be provided for us by the state.

What if the right to bear arms was treated like the pseudo-right to healthcare that liberals speak so often about?  Imagine not only being required to own a fire arm, but having to buy one that met certain government standards and being fined (or taxed) if you could not prove on your taxes that you owned one.

Now lets compare the right to bear arms to our first amendment rights.

What if our first amendment rights were treated the way our second amendment rights are as a matter of routine?

Imagine if you could only wear a “What Would Jesus Do?” T-shirt if you had a license?  How would that go over?  We seem to accept this treatment of the right to bear arms, when we would never accept the same treatment of our first amendment rights.

And what does “infringed” mean?  A fringe is the border of something.  To infringe on something is to intrude even on the furthest border of something.  This word implies that the founders intended this right to be given the broadest possible application, and they certainly never intended this right to mean that we must pay a fee or be licensed by the state to bear our firearms.

Folks, it is high time that we started demanding that our second amendment rights be treated the same way that our first amendment rights are treated!