Can Texas Secede from the Union?

Can Texas Secede from the Union?
By
James Scott Trimm

 

There has been a lot of talk during the last week about Secession.  Rush Limbaugh recently commented that he believed the country was "trending towards secession,"  And just Friday Texas GOP Chairman Allen West suggested that "law-abiding states" should "form a Union"

This is no joke or exaggeration.  Texas State Representative Kyle Biedermann has announced that he will indeed be filing a bill in the upcoming Texas Legislative Session which, if passed, would put Texas independence up for a vote in Texas.  

In recent years Scotland has voted itself independent, and Britian has voted itself out of the European Union.  If there can be a Brexit, why not a Texit?

In 1869 the Supreme Court Ruled in the wake of the Civil War:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
(Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

and:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
(Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

Of course the court's conflict of interest is obvious.  In fact the court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln.  But is this true?  Is the United States the Hotel California?

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. 

Thomas Jefferson

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)

 James Madison

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)


Unenumerated Rights

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But do these unenumerated Rights include the rights of the people of a state to secede from the Union?  The answer is very clearly yes.


The Right to Secede is Unalienable

The founding document of the United States of America is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.  In this founding document we read:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These “unalienable” rights were not  granted by secular governments nor are they gifts from them, they were endowed  upon us by our Creator and secular Governments may only respect these rights, or infringe  upon them.

But do these unalienable rights include a right to secede?  The Declaration of Independence also states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....”

Now it is clear that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station” of “separation” is one of the “unalienable rights” with which mankind are “endowed by their Creator” and thus they are entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”.

The Declaration of Independence Goes on to say:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Again the Declaration of Independence claims the origin of the right to :

“…publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Is derived from “the Supreme Judge of the world”  while the authority to do so is derived from “the good People of these Colonies”.


The States Retain the Right to Secede

Some have argued that there is no provision in the Constitution allowing a State to secede.  However this is backwards thinking.  The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights 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.”

The issue then is not, does the Constitution include a provision allowing a state to secede, but does it include a provision prohibiting a state from seceding (even if it did, this would not strip a state of its right to secede, since this right is unalienable).  The fact is that since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a state from seceding, states reserve the unalienable right to secede.


Consent of the Governed

As we stated earlier the Declaration of Independence claims that the right to secede is derived from “The Supreme Judge of the world” while the authority to do so is derived from “the good People of these Colonies”.

We also read in the Declaration of Independence:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Article 7 of the US Constitution says “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present”.

The states cannot be forced to participate in the Union against their consent, and without that consent, it has no “just powers”.

If at any time, a state, or the people of a state, cease to “consent” to be governed by the Federal Government, then the Federal Government no longer has any “just powers” to govern them.


The US Recognized Texas Right to Secede from Mexico

From 1821 to 1836 Texas was part of Mexico, but in 1836 the Republic of Texas seceded from Mexico.

On March 3, 1837, US President Andrew Jackson appointed Alcée La Branche as American “chargé d'affaires” to the Republic of Texas, thus officially recognizing the independence of the Republic of Texas and therefore recognizing its right to secede from Mexico.

On February 28, 1845, the US Congress passed a bill that would authorize the United States to annex the Republic of Texas.  This act also demonstrated that the United States recognized the right of Texas to Secede from Mexico in 1836.

If there is no unalienable right of secession, then the USA would be obligated to turn Texas back over to Mexico to be reannexed into that country.

The US Recognizes its own right to Secede from Great Britain

We have already discussed the Declaration of Independence.  It scarcely bears mentioning here that the United States maintains and recognizes the right of the Thirteen Colonies to Secede from Great Britain in the first place, otherwise the United States itself would have no right to exist, and should be re-annexed into Great Britain.


The Intent of the Founders

In interpreting the Constitution, one very important factor is that of the intent of the founders.  Of course it is impossible to believe that the founders understood the Constitution in a way that would conflict with the Declaration of Independence, as the “founders” in broad terms, composed and signed both documents.

In fact the Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson.  

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson addressed the issue in a letter to William B. Giles on Dec. 26, 1825 marked “not intended for the public eye,” Jefferson wrote that states:

“…should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.  Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”

Clearly the founders did not understand the Constitution as prohibiting the States from exercising their unalienable right of secession.  

The Civil War

The so-called “Civil War” opens a protracted discussion into numerous unconstitutional acts which took place in this dark time of American History.  This is far to protracted of a discussion for this short paper (perhaps some day I will write more extensively on this topic), suffice it to say that no “war” was ever declared by congress, and the so-called “Civil War” was an Executive action which ultimately resulted in the forced annexation of the Southern States.  As the Constitution lays out exactly how a state may be annexed, and it cannot be by force, this was the unconstitutional outcome of an unconstitutional Executive action.  (I should state here my absolute disdain for the institution of slavery, the relation of which to the so-called Civil War has been greatly misunderstood).


The Texas State Constitution

Most importantly the Texas State Constitution states that "the perpetuity of the Union" we have with the United States depends "upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States", that "All political power is inherent in the people" who "...have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." 


FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.  Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Article 1 Section 1)

INHERENT  POLITICAL  POWER;  REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF GOVERNMENT.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
(Article 1 Section 2)

In other words the right to secede was written into our new State Constitution, and we rejoined the union with a contingency that we could legally secede in the future!


Conclusion

States of the United States, and the State of Texas in particular, have an unalienable right to secede granted by the Creator and recognized explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, and implicitly in the Constitution and clearly was the understanding of the Founders.  The right of secession has been repeatedly recognized by the United States in its own secession from Britain, and in its own recognition of Texas right to secede from Mexico.  The right to secede is inalienable and cannot be given up or taken way, and is stated in our state constitution.

 

So Where is That Article V Convention?

 

 So Where is That Article V Convention?

 

Seven years ago, in 2013, Mark Levin published a book titled The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.  In this book, Levin proposed that our Republic could be saved by calling an Article V Convention of the States to amend the US Constitution with 11 amendments which Levin proposed in the book.

 A movement began to call an Article V Convention, and an effort was made to get State Legislatures to pass measures calling for such a Convention.  

 Then in 2016 Texas Governor Gregg Abbott published a 92 page document he called "The Texas Plan" which echoed Levin's idea, this time with nine proposed amendments.

There was a great deal of fanfare and debate.  Conservative opponents of the idea, expressed concern that such a convention might result in a convention that scrapped our US Constitution entirely, or which became hijacked by liberals.  

I initially supported Levin's idea, but upon later research, found that Levin had misinterpreted or misrepresented George Mason in relation to the purpose of the Article V convention.  (See my 2016 blog George Mason and Article V: The Untold Story)

Back in 2015 I wrote a blog titled "How Texas Can Regain our Sovereignty" which proposed a Texas Sovereignty Act Bill.  This Act would be a Tenth Amendment enforcement Act.  The idea gathered steam fast, and in a follow up blog, I called for such a bill. 

In February 2017  Texas State Representative Cecil Bell Jr. filed the Texas Sovereignty Act, Texas House Bill 2338, A companion bill was filed in the Texas Senate.  The Bill passed the House committee in the House, but died in calendars.  

We had a lot of support for the Texas Sovereignty Act, but we had some opposition from some pro-Article V advocates.  For some reason, they believed that the Texas Sovereignty Act concept somehow subtracted from their efforts.  Their argument was that we should call for an Article V Convention instead.  We argued that the two were not mutually exclusive, and some key people saw this, and stood for both.  

One argument we presented at the time, is that the Texas Sovereignty Act would have given Texas immediate relief from Federal overreach, whereas an Article V Convention would take years to gather enough state's calling for it, and then the results of the convention itself, were in question.  When would a convention actually occur?  Perhaps never.

Sadly the certainty of the immediate relief of a Texas Sovereignty Act was sacrificed in 2017 in favor af the maybe someday relief of a call for an Article V Convention, with the Texas Legislature passed instead.

 So here we are folks,  That was over three years ago, and no Article V convention is in sight.  In fact, since 2017, I have not even heard any talk about an effort to call an Article V Convention.

 In fact, it has been seven years since Levin made his proposal, and still, nothing has been done to protect Texas from Federal over reach.  And we could have passed the Texas Sovereignty Act back in 2017!

 

 

 

 

 

Why they Hate the Confederate Flag

 

Why they Hate the Confederate Flag
By
James Scott Trimm

 

 

I want to reveal to you the real reason that there is such an effort to ban the Confederate battle flag, destroy or remove confederate monuments, and generally demonize the Old South. 

The War of Norther Aggression (which some call the Civil War) was not about slavery (See my previous blog on this).   In the popular movie The Matrix, Neo was offered two pills, take the red pill, and have reality revealed, or take the blue pill and remain in blissful ignorance.  I offer you the same choice.  Stop reading now, and remain in ignorant bliss, or continue reading the documented facts, and be awakened to what the Confederacy actually stood for, what was lost, and how our nation’s troubles today can be tied to that loss.

 

Last Chance, think carefully before you continue….

 

OK to begin with, to understand the cause of this horrible war, we must understand what divided the two sides.  The reality is that this war grew out of fundamental differences between the two major parties, which had grown more and more divergent.

 

This was, in essence, a war between the underlying philosophies of the Democratic Party of the time, and the fledgling Republican party, which was the new successor to the Whig Party.  We must not confuse these two parties of the mid 19^th century, with the parties that bear their names today. Because while there is a line of succession, these parties today bear no resemblance to their predecessors.  This is why Ronald Reagan said, he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. 

 

To understand what motivated these two sides, we are going to look at their 1856 and 1860 party platforms, and at the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.  We are going back to the 1856 platforms, because in their 1860 platform, the Democrats said:

 

That we, the Democracy of the Union in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when applied to the same subject matters;

 

IN 1860 they added only a few additional resolutions.  The 1856 Platform, the Democrats of the time, articulated what they called “the distinctive feature” of their “political creed” as follows:

 

Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

 

Here these Antebellum Democrats, define themselves as anti-Federalists, and their Republican opposition as “Federalists”.  (some misuse the term “federalist” today, see my blog Civil War Monuments and The War of Northern Aggression.)

 

These Proto-Confederate Democrats expressed their concern with rising federal tyranny saying:

 

That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

 

 

Federal Spending

 

Federal tyranny was becoming a serious problem.  The Norther states were more populous than the Southern states, and while the Southern states were primarily agricultural, the Northern states were industrializing, building factories and manufacturing products.  The Northern states had an advantage in Congress, and now that their needs were differing from the South, they were learning a new trick.  Create taxes that largely impacted the South, but spend the money to make infrastructure improvements in the north.  (Between 1824 and 1828 alone, two and a third million dollars
had been voted by Congress for this purpose.)

 

This was a redistribution of wealth from the Southern States to the Norther States.  In effect, the Southern States were paying tribute to the Northern States.  It was also crony capitalism and corporate welfare, in that the Federal Government was favoring one type of industry (manufacturing) over another (agriculture), picking the winners and losers, and supplying the needs of one, at the detriment to the other. 

 

The Republican platform of 1860 supported this Federal spending, saying (with almost identical words to their 1856 platform):

 

That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

 

This is exactly what was being addressed by the 1856/1860 Democratic Party Platform:

 

2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements.

 

3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other State purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.

 

4. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression.

 

And describing itself later as:

 

…as the party of the Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State, and thereby the Union of the States; and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution,…

 

This was codified in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America as follows (Article 1, section 8, item 3:

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

 

 

A Lean, Balanced Federal Budget

 

In fact, the Democrats wanted a lean, balanced Federal budget, as their platform went on to say:

 

5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt.

 

6. That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.

 

In fact, the Confederate Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 9, items 9-10) would restrict Federal spending:

 

(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

 

(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

 

 

Free Trade

 

As the Norther States were industrializing, they wanted to force the Southern States to buy Northern goods.  However, the South had a long standing system of trade with Europe.  Ships from the South would leave loaded with cotton and tobacco, and return filled with manufactured products from Europe.  This system worked well for the South because it meant that the ships would be filled on both coming and going trips, rather than returning empty (doubling the expenses), and it was cheaper to move things over water than to move goods over land.  Having the advantage in Congress, the North passed heavy tariffs on imports from Europe (Lincoln even raised them to 50%!). In an effort to force Southerners to buy more expensive Northern products.

 

The Republican Platform of 1860 supported these heavy tariffs:

 

That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

 

While the 1856/1860 Democratic platform called for free trade:

 

Resolved, That there are questions connected with the foreign policy of this country, which are inferior to no domestic question whatever. The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world, and, by solemn manifestations, to place their moral influence at the side of their successful example.

 

 

Federal Judicial Activism

 

The Confederates also saw the coming danger of lifetime Federal judges as judicial activists, perpetuating Federal tyranny.  They wrote into the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (Article 1 section 5):

 

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

 

Allowing states to impeach bad Federal judges.

 

 

Line Item Veto

 

In order to restrain Congress, the Confederate States of America, gave their president a line item veto power (Article 1 Sec. 7, item 2):

 

(2) Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederate States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respective}y. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

 

 

No Piggy Back Legislation:

 

The Confederate Constitution also prohibited so-called “piggy back” legislation, where riders are attached to unrelated bills, often used to slip “pork” into important bills that need to be passed.  The Confederate Constitution read (Art. 1, Sec 9, Item 20):

 

(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

 

 

General Welfare

 

The Confederates also saw the dangerous Federal abuses of the “general welfare” clause in the US Constitution, which reads:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

 

They removed this phrase from the parallel portion of the Confederate States Constitution (Article 1 Section 8; item 1):

 

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

 

 

Resistance to a Federal Reserve System

 

The Democrats also opposed the Federalist dream of restoring Federalist Alexander Hamilton’s dream of a “national bank” chartered by the Federal Government:

 

7. That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits.

 

8. That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people.

 

9. That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements.

A popular meme that has circulated accrediting Lincoln with opposing the Federal Reserve, is false.  In fact the Lincolnites supported the idea, and their opponents, the 1856/1860 Democrats, were the ones who opposed creating such a bank.

 

 

Amendments Only From States

 

The constitution of the Confederate States of America stripped the Federal Government (congress) of the power to originate amendments to the Constitution, instead, amendments could only originate from an Article V Convention of the States (which only three states were needed to call) )Article 5, Section 1, Item 1):

Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

 

 

 

How to End Slavery

 

Finally I must address the slavery question.  By the mid 19^th Century, slavery had become an anachronism.  The real question at the time, for the vast majority, was not if slavery should end, but how it should end.  The abolitionists wanted to free the slaves instantly.  The incrementalists said that while that sounded nice, it was problematic and unfair to the slaves themselves, to simply kick them to the curb with no education, and with no property, short of the shirt on their backs.  In the south, nearly 25% of the population, were slaves.  Suddenly creating a massive homeless population with no education, would have been an economic disaster, especially for the freed slaves.  Several plans were being discussed in the state legislatures of the slave states, on a viable exit strategy.  Many of these proposals involved educating the slaves, teaching them trades and granting them lands, either at state taxpayer expense, or at their owner’s expense.  The concern of Southern states, was that rather than the states resolving this anachronism on their own, the Federal government, steered by the abolitionists, would simply kick them to the curb, with no responsibility from their owners, creating a massive homeless population, government dependency, and crime from wandering marauders with no other means to survive.   

 

In fact the Confederate Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Item 1) prohibited the import of new slaves while the problem was resolved by the states:

 

(I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

  

 

What was Lost

 

In his book The Story of the Confederacy, Robert Selph Henry put it well when he wrote:

 

With its failure the United States of America that we know was born. The South, the Northern Republicans said, rebelled.  To crush the “rebellion” the North wrought a revolution.  The old union of states federated together for specific and limited purposes died, to be succeeded by a new nation in which the states, North and South alike, have contentedly sunk from the sovereignty they so jealously maintained in 1787 to become little more than convenient administrative subdivisions of government.

(The Story of the Confederacy; Robert Selph Henry 1931; p. 11)

 

The Confederates were not fighting to preserve slavery.  They were fighting for State’s rights.  They were fighting against Federal tyranny.  They were fighting against unfair and unrestrained federal spending, against crony capitalism, against corporate welfare.  They were fighting for free trade.  They were fighting against judicial activism.  They were fighting for a balanced budget provision, a line item veto and against piggy back legislation.  They were fighting against federal abuse of the general welfare clause and they were fighting against a Federal Reserve System.  They lost.

 

As a result of their loss, we now have an out of control Federal government, unrestrained spending, no balanced budget, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, no free trade, judicial activism by life term dictators in black robes, piggy back legislation packed into unrelated bills, federal abuse of the welfare clause and, though it took a few years, even a Federal Reserve Banking system!

 

This is why I am a Reagan Republican, not a Lincoln Republican.  This is why we should have Reagan Dinners not Lincoln Dinners. 

 

This is why the South was demonized after the War no Northern Aggression, while Lincoln was virtually deified. 

 

Most importantly, this is why there is an effort, now more than ever, to demonize the Old South, the ban the Confederate battle flag and destroy monuments erected to the brave men who fought for the South in the War of Northern Aggression.

 

Of course the Confederate Battle Flag does not represent racism.  Now you know what it does represent, and why “they” must defame an ban it!

 

Now you know why I say that the Confederate Battle flag represents, not only Southern Heritage, but freedom from Federal tyranny! 

 

See also my blog  Civil War Monuments and The War of Northern Aggression

 

 

 

The Tarrant County Forty Nine Finally Redeemed

Redemption of the Tarrant County Forty Nine

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Almost two years ago, myself and a group of Tarrant County conservatives who became known as the "Tarrant County Forty Nine" were offered up on the alter of political correctness by the Tarrant County and Texas Republican Party leaders. 

The Tarrant County Forty Nine had dared to oppose the appointment of Shahid Shafi as vice chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party. 

Dr. Shafi  failed to directly respond to requests that he himself publicly declare that he will support Israel with Jerusalem as its undivided capital and oppose creation of a Palestinian State within the historic borders of Israel, in keeping with our 2018 Texas Republican Party Platform (Planks 207 and 208).  Moreover, Shafi had been enddorsed by CAIR, and refused to renounce that endorsement and repudiate CAIR, despite the fact that the 2018 Texas Republican Party Platform stated:

177. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): We hereby call on all law enforcement and governmental agencies in Texas to avoid and suspend all contact and outreach activities with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, with ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

For this, and other reasons (seen in The Geller Report here), the Tarrant County Forty Nine dared to oppose the Shafi appointment.  The leadership of both the local Tarrant County Republican Party and the Texas Republican Party conspired directly with the liberal media, to publicly smear the Tarrant County Forty Nine as supposed bigots.  Texas GOP Chair James Dickey even wrote an Op-Ed in the liberal Dallas Morning News attacking Shafi opposition as "bigotry"!

The whole fiasco had the Geller Report asking, "Is Texas Going Green"?

And by Understanding the Threat at Texas Media Desperate to Defend Jihadis

 And instigated this video response from Understanding the Threat:

 

But time has finally exonerated the Tarrant County Forty Nine. 

Less than a year ago, in December of 2019, Tarrant County GOP Chair Darl Easton finally gave heed to calls that he resign (As seen in the Geller Report here) over his division of the party over his handling of this issue. See my blog on this: Tarrant GOP Chair Darl Easton Heeds Calls to Resign

Last weekend the grass roots of the Texas GOP, about 6,000 delegates, voted to replace Texas Chair James Dickey with Lt. Col. Allen West.  West had once written a blog about "stealth jihad" in which he said "As those of us not under the spell of political correctness know, Islam does not coexist." (See my blog on this Allen West is Texas State Chair: Good Pro-Israel News

See Pamala Geller Interview of Allen West here

It has been almost two years, but time has ultimately redeemed the Forty Nine Conservatives who had the courage to stand up for our party platform, and against CAIR, while our own party leaders were throwing us under the bus and publicly calling us bigots in the liberal media.  It is indeed ironic that the Aramaic word חילא KHAILA, meaning "strength, courage" has a numerical value of 49. 

Allen West is Texas State Chair: Good Pro-Israel News

Allen West as Texas State Chair is Good Pro-Israel News 

By

James Scott Trimm

In 2018 newly elected County Chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party, Darl Easton nearly tore the Tarrant County Republican Party apart, with the controversial appointment of Shahid Shafi as Vice Chair.  

Dr. Shafi  failed to directly respond to requests that he himself publicly declare that he will support Israel with Jerusalem as its undivided capital and oppose creation of a Palestinian State within the historic borders of Israel, in keeping with our Texas Republican Party Platform:

207. Israel: We are grateful that the US Embassy in Israel has been moved to Jerusalem. We believe that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital, accessible to people of all faiths. The United States should continue to support Israel militarily, financially, and technologically. We oppose any pressuring of Israel to make concessions they believe would jeopardize their security. We strongly oppose the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, on all levels, including and especially on college campuses, at the United Nations, and by anti-West non-governmental organizations. We believe there should not be a Palestinian state within the historical borders of Israel. Our policy is inspired by God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel, and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.
208. Israel’s Sovereignty: We further insist upon Israel’s right to exist, its right to secure borders, and its right to the land secured by practicing self-defense from aggressive enemies. We strongly encourage other nations of the world to respect Israel’s sovereignty, right of self-determination, and right of self-defense.


The rather defensive reaction from our County Chair was that it was unfair to ask Dr. Shafi if he will make such a declaration (each element of which is in our party platform) simply because he is a Muslim:

 



Actually one can be a Muslim and still support Israel.  In fact there is a very, very, small group of pro-Israel “Zionist” Muslims.  But they are in extremely small numbers and live in fear of their lives, threatened by the vast majority.  The Wikipedia article on Muslim Supporters of Israel, however, says:

In the Muslim world, support of Israel is a minority orientation, and supporters of Israel have faced opposition and violence

One wonders why such oppression and violence would come from a religion of peace.

However Dr. Shafi had been endorsed by CAIR which is well known for its anti-Israel agenda.

 





Our Texas Party platform says of CAIR:

177. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): We hereby call on all law enforcement and governmental agencies in Texas to avoid and suspend all contact and outreach activities with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, with ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

And the ADL says of CAIR:

CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization.

At the September 2018 meeting of the Executive Committee, Dr. Shafi addressed the body, but completely ignored calls for him to make a public statement supporting our pro-Israel platform.


By November of 2018  There was a concerted effort by the Tarrant County Republican Party leadership in cooperation with the liberal media, to establish a narrative that the opposition to Shahid Shafi is driven by bigotry.

 In fact this blogger received a message from a Party official (who shall remain nameless) saying:

"It is a simple narrative that I am trying to establish. The TCGOP does not approve of bigotry within the party. I understand your concerns and its importance, I get it. ... Perception is everything. ... I would ask a favor, please stop working against what my goal is here..." 

The leadership within the Tarrant County Republican Party collaborated with the liberal media to intentionally establish this bigotry narrative.  
 
Darl Easton had created a public relations nightmare.  The party was divided and there was little hope that is could unite under Darl's leadership with this controversial appointment in place.  Yet, since Darl and his cohorts, had established a narrative for the liberal media that this was only about bigotry, the liberal media was attacking the party as "bigots".

The story of the whole debacle, which ultimately led to Easton's resignation, can be found in my blog Tarrant GOP Chair Darl Easton Heeds Calls to Resign

While Darl was tearing the Tarrant County Republican party apart, labeling any opposition to Shafi in the press a bigot. Texas State Chair James Dickey wasted no time at all in joining in, also cooperating with the liberal press to label Shafi opposition as bigotry, even writing an op-ed saying:

In Tarrant County, a few individuals have sought to remove Dr. Shahid Shafi from his position as Vice Chair of the county Party because of his religion – because he is a Muslim. That is not our Party.... The Republican Party has a long history of fighting for our God-given rights, for freedom and against bigotry in all forms.
(Dallas Morning News Dec. 7, 2018)

James Dicky seemed determined to divide the state party as deeply as the Tarrant County Party had been divided, and joined this collaboration with the liberal press to label fellow Republicans bigots in the media!

At yesterday's Texas Republican Party Convention, the grassroots Republicans voted to replace State Chair James Dickey with Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.

Allen West is a man known for his staunch support of Israel, having once said:

"As goes Israel - so goes the United States of America and so goes Western civilization. And so many of our adversaries and enemies know that. That's what we're facing all across the Middle East and, truthfully, all across the world."
Allen West: If Israel goes, Western civilization goes

West is not a man to bow to CAIR like Dickey, to the contrary, CAIR has listed West as an alleged "Islamaphob"  Unlike the politically correct Dickey, West once wrote a blog on the The stealth jihad of Islamic immigration in which West wrote: "As those of us not under the spell of political correctness know, Islam does not coexist." 

 Lieutenant Colonel Allen West is not under the spell of political correctness which has afflicted our previous leadership.  Colonel West is the man to reunite our party and to recommit our party to our party platform!

SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

By

James Scott Trimm

We are living in post-constitutional America.  Fox News has just reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws requiring those chosen for the Electoral College to back the popular winner in their state's presidential race, a rebuke of a group of so-called "faithless" presidential electors in Washington and Colorado who sued after they were sanctioned for voting contrary to pledges they took before becoming electors.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court said that those sanctions -- in Washington a fine and in Colorado being removed and replaced as an elector -- are constitutional.
(Supreme Court rules states can bind faithless electors)

In fact these laws are 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!

SCOTUS now says a state can 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 under this ruling people can be thrown 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 SCOTUS ruling plays into Progressive efforts to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Direct Democracy. 

Munford Ex-Wife's Autobiography: A Tale of Abuse and Sexual Assault

Munford Ex-Wife's Autobiography a Tale of Abuse and Sexual Assault

By

James Scott Trimm 

It has been almost two years since I first broke the story that Tarrant County Family Court Judge James Munford's ex-wife, Denia Michelle Mendenhall had bravely come forward to tell the world about the her marriage to James Munford and her life of abuse and sexual assault.

If you have not read that blog  Munford Ex-Wife Recounts his Abuse, Sexual Assault  you should.

That blog has even further support now, with the recent publication of Munford's Ex-Wife, Denia Mendenhall's auto-biography: But for the Grace of God.

The new autobiography not only lends further testimony to the original blog, but contains new revelations as well.

The new book states ""But for the Grace of God is a nonfiction memoir, some names have been changed to protect the living." (page 2).  One pseudonym used in the book is "Sam Douter".  Without any doubt, Sam Douter is James Munford, who is now a Tarrant County Family Court judge.
 
In the new book, the former Mrs. Munford describes her relationship with her ex-husband as "a four year nightmare" (page 45) and "Four years of pure hell" (page 43)  She refers to him as a "devil... risen from the depths of hell itself" (page 43) and "the first true monster who entered my life." (page 43)

She writes:

"Everything would be to Sam's liking with no variance. He was a control freak and turned out to be an abuser. He was troubled in many ways."
(page 45)

The new book reveals shocking details of the abuse the former Mrs. Munford says that she suffered under him. For example, she recounts one episode in which she used the wrong silverware, invoking his wrath:

 "Then it got crazy. I was kicked under the dinner table for using the wrong silverware."
(p. 46)



She describes other episodes of "unnecessary enemas and belt beatings."  She also recounts that "Sam" (Munford) would cram "crosses" into her vagina, and abuse their cat to make her cry:

"I endured unnecessary enemas, belt beatings, assorted vegetables and crosses crammed into my vagina whenever he had the urge. I just let him do whatever he wanted without questions, helpless, as tears poured down my cheeks.  He possessed cruelty to the point of abusing our cat by beating it with a pair of black ski gloves and when I stopped crying, he'd put the three-legged cat he named Kitty Hook in a bathroom drawer as I wept. Until I stopped crying the second time, only then would he free her."
(p. 46-47)

She also reveals that "Sam" (Munford) would belittle her family's social status while pushing her:

"...he would push me around saying I was acting like my low-class family. ... But I took the abuse as I was trapped."
(p. 48)



Munford Gets into Law School on Denia's Back

In her new autobiography,  Judge Munfrord's ex-wife also details how she helped him get into law school, all the while being abused by him:

"...I would become a 'teacher' for Sam's education.... this was my new life. I worked weekends while taking 18 hours of classes. At the same time, I typed Sam's papers to impress his professors so he could get into law school while simultaneously enduring his mental and physical abuse."
(page 46)

"...typing those papers came before any sleep."
(page 47)

"After beating me with his law school study books and having me walk with them on my head to correct my already perfect posture, he finally found a college in Houston to accept him.  But not before I took bashes for every question he missed while I helped him with the LSAT study guide."
(page 48)


Munford: From Effeminate to Abuser

The autobiography relates how "Sam" (Munford) began, as his ex-wife described him "effeminate"

"... Sam grew up effeminate.  He was a momma's boy. ... I discovered that his sister, Judy, had to fight for him against hos foes on the playground in middle school."
(pages 45-46)

But then she recounts that he overcompensated for this by becoming abusive:

"Sam began to overcompensate for his femininity and began to beat me into submission." 
(page 45)

One day the former Mrs. Munford's realized she was living with an abuser:

"One night Sam and I went to a law school party.  Some of the women gather around me noticing how pretty I was and shockingly wondered why I was married to a homosexual.  I only saw Sam as an abuser, not a gay man. I told the ladies about the abuse and one lady gave me a book on abusive men.  This opened my mind to what an abusive man is like. I realized then I was living with one."
(pages 50-51)

The book describes the end of their marriage writing:

"Sam was devastated and cried like a baby for me to come back, but it all fell on deaf ears.  I was in the midst of goodness and happiness.... Zuki was free!"
(p. 56)

Years later she recounts:
 
"I conducted a testimony at Houston's Police Academy to 90 police cadets about the abuse by Sam Douter with two local channels filming."
(p 220)

Munford's ex-wife's autobiography is a story of survival of many obstacles she faced in life, including spousal abuse.  She dedicates the book:

"...first and foremost to those women of our society who are hiding silently in their self-contained shells. Women who have painful, sad, scary stories to share. Please never give up, life can be at least ok."
(p. 3) 

In this "Me Too" era, this is a huge and embarrassing  "Me Too" problem for the Tarrant County Judiciary.  Moreover, James Munford iss a sitting judge in the Tarrant County Family Courts, responsible for justice related to abused women, which itself is an injustice to the women of Tarrant County.
 
 I encourage everyone to obtain a copy of But for the Grace of God by Denia "Zuki" Mendenhall.