Proposed Changes to the Texas Sovereignty Act draft version, first published on Facebook on October 11, 2016

This page captures a series of proposed changes and review notes based on the Texas Sovereignty Act draft version,first published on Facebook on October 11, 2016 by Tom Glass.

• Under 9c: "specifically including those actions that unconstitutionally undermine,

diminish, or disregard the balance of powers between the states and the federal government established by the Constitution.

• The Texas Sovereignty Act could further emphasize the balance of power between the federal government, states, AND the people, in the event that the state government itself forgets its place!

• Under 9e: “therefore stop unconstitutional federal actions, enforcing the Texas Penal Code against federal agents acting under the color of unconstitutional federal acts.” A specific definition or list or examples may need to be provided. It is too vague to be actionable. I realize that it may be vague by design, but I wouldn’t expect anyone to realistically do anything under terms that are so ambiguous. Let’s recall that the supreme court of the united States can’t make up its mind about what is constitutional. I suspect that the definition could be something like any act which would require more force t

Consider including or drawing upon a quotation from Andrew Jackson regarding SC’s Nullification Act: “The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution — that they may do this consistently with the Constitution — that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” See: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/proclamation-regarding-nullification/

• 9f: This state and its people retain their sovereign power to regulate the affairs of this state, subject only to the limitations prescribed by the United States Constitution.

Consider reconciling with the Texas Bill of Rights which states under Article 1 sec 2: “Sec. 2. 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.” , specifically: “they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient”. In such manner is very loose wording and does not prescribe who or the method. Historically, the method has been a referendum, but in the event that the federal government continues its pace and the Texas government eventually follows suit, it would be good to allow for micro states to exist within the state. This was Thomas Jefferson’s idea of restoring the larger republic of the United States.

• 1.) Divide the entire country into 100-person units with full self-governing powers.
• 2.) These units can then delegate some of their powers to larger governmental bodies, or not.
• 3.) The tiny size of these units would ensure that every person in the country knew his or her local representative… as in, “can knock on their door and complain to their face.”

See here for details: Thomas Jefferson's the Hundreds Plan

• Definitions

The definitions need precision. I recognize that some vagueness may be included, by design; however, I would suggest something which indicates that the purpose of the government is to provide maximum sovereignty for individuals without impacting others sovereignty. It will take me some more time to come up with a better definition, but at present the definition of unconstitutional seems to be "anything that is unconstitutional"

Here is the relevant text excerpted from the draft that is concerning:

(3) "Unconstitutional federal action" means a federal action enacted, adopted, or implemented without authority specifically delegated to the federal government by the states through the United States Constitution. (4) “Declared unconstitutional federal action” means an unconstitutional federal action declared to be such by the joint legislative committee on constitutional enforcement or legislature, the governor, the attorney general, district or county attorneys, county commissioner courts, city councils, sheriffs, or the Texas judiciary.

• Sec 393.002:

I may have a difficult time describing, but it feels like an unintended consequence will result from including political parties in the discussion, and there is also the question of removal of the possibility for independents? See here:

(d) Not more than four house members of the committee and four senate members of the committee may be members of the same political party. Both the speaker of the house and the lieutenant governor shall appoint at least one member of every party represented in the body.

• Sec. 393.004.

This is holding back no punches! I'd only suggest that as with the requirement for concealed carry, there be training of some sort with dare I say, a test. Recognizing the tendency of organizations and legislation to introduce unforeseen consequences and to turn from their first principles, the risk is that once federal power has been reeled in, it may at some point become too weak with the state government becoming oppressive and the federal government powerless within its scope of powers. I'm reminded of some cities which mandated attendance at a specific church early on in our nation's history.

• Sec. 37.0056 was impressive. I suggest that it somehow be factored in the definition of what is unconstitutional. Perhaps training or a test would be helpful to avoid flooding the courts with nonsense.