| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=Frequently Asked Questions= | =Frequently Asked Questions= | ||
==What is it? | ==What is it? == | ||
The Texas Sovereignty Act is a state level legislative framework aimed at reducing unconstitutional federal usurpation of power and restoring the proper balance of the Constitution between the States and the Federal government. It does not address the proper balance between the people themselves and the government. | The Texas Sovereignty Act is a state level legislative framework aimed at reducing unconstitutional federal usurpation of power and restoring the proper balance of the Constitution between the States and the Federal government. It does not address the proper balance between the people themselves and the government. | ||
== | ==What do you mean unConstitutional?== | ||
The problem may be one of education. The term, constitutional,is usually interpreted to mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means. However, even a casual review of documentation around the founding of the Constitution would reveal it was based on a LIMITED set of powers. Going to war, delivering the mail, settling disputes between states, were some of its powers. It was not meant to act INSIDE of the states. There was much concern that some of the loose language would be used to abuse as is demonstrated by the likes of Patrick Henry and in the various ratifying debates. Ultimately such concerns were validated by the amending of the Constitution with the so-called Bill of Rights to further emphasize the limited role that the federal government had. What changed? Well in a nutshell around the turn of the 20th century, activist judges began broadly interpreting clauses from their original strict construction (limited power) to mean virtually anything. The federal government is 180 degrees from where it started and many of the citizens happily go along with it because ... supreme Court says so! | The problem may be one of education. The term, constitutional,is usually interpreted to mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means. However, even a casual review of documentation around the founding of the Constitution would reveal it was based on a LIMITED set of powers. Going to war, delivering the mail, settling disputes between states, were some of its powers. It was not meant to act INSIDE of the states. There was much concern that some of the loose language would be used to abuse as is demonstrated by the likes of Patrick Henry and in the various ratifying debates. Ultimately such concerns were validated by the amending of the Constitution with the so-called Bill of Rights to further emphasize the limited role that the federal government had. What changed? Well in a nutshell around the turn of the 20th century, activist judges began broadly interpreting clauses from their original strict construction (limited power) to mean virtually anything. The federal government is 180 degrees from where it started and many of the citizens happily go along with it because ... supreme Court says so! | ||
== | ==Okay, fine, what is so bad about the current state of affairs, even with all the corruption?== | ||
People have a basic right to self-governance and there are often vast differences in the way people think in different regions or sections of the country. Due to homogenization and television, this is not always the case, but there are still plenty of differences. For example, in Texas, many of us like guns. Regional differences aside, the real point is WHY have a set of rules for the government, called the Constitution, if it is going to ignore them? Why not let it do whatever it wants and just give all of your money to it? Rhetorical. | People have a basic right to self-governance and there are often vast differences in the way people think in different regions or sections of the country. Due to homogenization and television, this is not always the case, but there are still plenty of differences. For example, in Texas, many of us like guns. Regional differences aside, the real point is WHY have a set of rules for the government, called the Constitution, if it is going to ignore them? Why not let it do whatever it wants and just give all of your money to it? Rhetorical. | ||
== | ==But wait, wasn't this settled during the Civil War?== | ||
Americans are generally unaware of the usurpations of power by Abraham Lincoln. Basically, he said: Oh, shoot, the country is breaking up, well, I'll fix it with cannon fire and almost a million dead! That's one way to spread the message of liberty! You have a lot to learn about Abraham Lincoln. Oh, but he freed the slaves? Fair enough, but bear in mind - freeing the slaves was politically expedient at the time. There are plenty of quotes to support this position with even a casual google search. Have at it. | Americans are generally unaware of the usurpations of power by Abraham Lincoln. Basically, he said: Oh, shoot, the country is breaking up, well, I'll fix it with cannon fire and almost a million dead! That's one way to spread the message of liberty! You have a lot to learn about Abraham Lincoln. Oh, but he freed the slaves? Fair enough, but bear in mind - freeing the slaves was politically expedient at the time. There are plenty of quotes to support this position with even a casual google search. Have at it. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==What Could go Wrong?== | ==What Could go Wrong?== | ||
What could go wrong if we enforce the Constitution we already have? | What could go wrong if we enforce the Constitution we already have? A little background is in order, first. | ||
What could go wrong is a lack of standardization. People traveling would need to be more aware of regional differences in laws. It may require people to move if some areas begin to regress on civil rights. In the end it works out, because people of like mind are then drawn to one another. | It could be argued that the "cracks" in the Constitution did allow for expansion in civil rights in many cases. Remember when black and white people couldn't get married? Remember that? It wasn't that long ago. The culture has shifted since then - and we recently elected a black president for 2 terms, so such notions are largely extinguished on the basis of "race", but there are still other areas where there appears to be some public concern and difference of opinion. While there may still be some distrust among people with different unalterable attributes (hair type, skin melanin content, eye color, nose size, moles, etc.), there is also a wide range of activities such people are able to participate in together. This allows the public at large to vote with its feet as the Constitution was originally designed. For example, the State of Pennsylvania made accommodations for its Amish people - not requiring them to attend school past 8th grade. Some states like to pass lots of commercial laws , which businesses tend to favor. Some states let the people do more of what they want, and other more populated states have to deal with the problems that large population centers bring. | ||
OK, back to the question: What could go wrong is a lack of standardization. People traveling would need to be more aware of regional differences in laws. It may require people to move if some areas begin to regress on civil rights. In the end it works out, because people of like mind are then drawn to one another. | |||
==What will happen with the inevitable conflict of Federal vs. State 'interpretations' of the Constitution? == | ==What will happen with the inevitable conflict of Federal vs. State 'interpretations' of the Constitution? == | ||
Revision as of 07:28, 7 December 2016
This page is intended to be a backup location for files and questions pertaining to the Texas Sovereignty Act, as discussed in the Texas Constitutional Enforcement Facebook group. It is written up as one person's view of the act.
The current bill text and summary are linked below in the Downloads section.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is it?
The Texas Sovereignty Act is a state level legislative framework aimed at reducing unconstitutional federal usurpation of power and restoring the proper balance of the Constitution between the States and the Federal government. It does not address the proper balance between the people themselves and the government.
What do you mean unConstitutional?
The problem may be one of education. The term, constitutional,is usually interpreted to mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means. However, even a casual review of documentation around the founding of the Constitution would reveal it was based on a LIMITED set of powers. Going to war, delivering the mail, settling disputes between states, were some of its powers. It was not meant to act INSIDE of the states. There was much concern that some of the loose language would be used to abuse as is demonstrated by the likes of Patrick Henry and in the various ratifying debates. Ultimately such concerns were validated by the amending of the Constitution with the so-called Bill of Rights to further emphasize the limited role that the federal government had. What changed? Well in a nutshell around the turn of the 20th century, activist judges began broadly interpreting clauses from their original strict construction (limited power) to mean virtually anything. The federal government is 180 degrees from where it started and many of the citizens happily go along with it because ... supreme Court says so!
Okay, fine, what is so bad about the current state of affairs, even with all the corruption?
People have a basic right to self-governance and there are often vast differences in the way people think in different regions or sections of the country. Due to homogenization and television, this is not always the case, but there are still plenty of differences. For example, in Texas, many of us like guns. Regional differences aside, the real point is WHY have a set of rules for the government, called the Constitution, if it is going to ignore them? Why not let it do whatever it wants and just give all of your money to it? Rhetorical.
But wait, wasn't this settled during the Civil War?
Americans are generally unaware of the usurpations of power by Abraham Lincoln. Basically, he said: Oh, shoot, the country is breaking up, well, I'll fix it with cannon fire and almost a million dead! That's one way to spread the message of liberty! You have a lot to learn about Abraham Lincoln. Oh, but he freed the slaves? Fair enough, but bear in mind - freeing the slaves was politically expedient at the time. There are plenty of quotes to support this position with even a casual google search. Have at it.
What differentiates this approach from other approaches to restoring the Constitution?
There are several basic approaches - Suing in Federal Court, Constitutional Convention, and some have even proposed Secession. How about Enforcing the Constitution we already have and that State judges and Sheriffs are already duty bound to enforce?
Constitutional Convention
It may happen in 50 years time, and even if it does - think about this - the framers of the Constitution went in to simply amend the Articles of the Confederation. They disappeared for a few weeks and out popped the Constitution! Imagine if today's lawmakers went into a dark room for a few weeks, what could possibly go wrong? Perhaps the first amendment might be: The Existing Constitution is hereby scrapped! Perhaps not, but either way the current Congress would control the agenda.
Secession
In the state of Texas, there is some appetite for secession, but by and large, it sounds nuts to outsiders of such circles. Nuts I tell you!
Constitutional Enforcement
Which brings us back to enforcing the Constitution we already have.
What Could go Wrong?
What could go wrong if we enforce the Constitution we already have? A little background is in order, first.
It could be argued that the "cracks" in the Constitution did allow for expansion in civil rights in many cases. Remember when black and white people couldn't get married? Remember that? It wasn't that long ago. The culture has shifted since then - and we recently elected a black president for 2 terms, so such notions are largely extinguished on the basis of "race", but there are still other areas where there appears to be some public concern and difference of opinion. While there may still be some distrust among people with different unalterable attributes (hair type, skin melanin content, eye color, nose size, moles, etc.), there is also a wide range of activities such people are able to participate in together. This allows the public at large to vote with its feet as the Constitution was originally designed. For example, the State of Pennsylvania made accommodations for its Amish people - not requiring them to attend school past 8th grade. Some states like to pass lots of commercial laws , which businesses tend to favor. Some states let the people do more of what they want, and other more populated states have to deal with the problems that large population centers bring.
OK, back to the question: What could go wrong is a lack of standardization. People traveling would need to be more aware of regional differences in laws. It may require people to move if some areas begin to regress on civil rights. In the end it works out, because people of like mind are then drawn to one another.
What will happen with the inevitable conflict of Federal vs. State 'interpretations' of the Constitution?
Ultimately, It will depend on the political will of the people of the State of Texas. The way this act is designed, "The case may be removed to Federal court, but the prisoner will not be.", but it all depends on state officials doing their job and challenging federal officials. Will they? Will you?
Downloads
- File:Texas Sovereignty Act - 2017 - Nov 13 2016 Draft.pdf
- File:Summary of 2017 Texas Sovereignty Act.pdf
- File:Texas Constitutional Enforcement Brochure v4.pdf