Texas Legislator to File Firearms Protection Act

Austin, TX – State Representative Steve Toth (The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Representative Toth.

Along with Wyoming, Texas will lead the country in continuing to stand for the sovereignty to run Texas as Texans see fit while exercising the Bill of Rights Amendments 2 & 10 to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers… [to] extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.” Along with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has already filed over twenty-three suits against the Federal Government, Representative Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.


It Looks Solid, But…

I recently participated on a round-table discussion on the Tenth Amendment, political sovereignty, delegation of power and nullification on a talk show in Indiana. The panel consisted of me, two left-leaning lawyers and a right-leaning lawyer.

I took two interesting observations away with me.

Most telling was the fact that both of the lefties and the righty disagreed with me, proving a point I’ve been making for quite a while – at the core, the left and right aren’t that much different. Both sides desire expansive government power. They just argue about what part of your life that power should apply to.

I also found it interesting that my opponents’ entire argument rested on the thinnest of ice. It looked solid on the surface. But the slightest poke easily punched holes in it.

Opponents of nullification base their argument on a false premise – the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court.  The other three countered virtually every argument I made with, “the Supreme Court says.” It was almost comical. I pointed out in various ways that the Supreme Court does not stand as the sole and final authority on the extent of federal power, and they would answer, “But the Supreme Court says…” In essence, their argument boils down to “the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority because the Supreme Court says it stands as the ultimate authority.”

Yeah. OK.


Marriage Should Not Be Regulated by the Federal Government

liberals-states-rightsby Jason Kuznicki, CATO Institute

Of course gay marriage should be left to the states. Indeed, all marriage should be left to the states. Search the U.S. Constitution from start to finish, and you will find no reference whatsoever to marriage. You will, however, find the 10th Amendment, which reads as follows: “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.”

Marriage is not commerce, war, or taxation. It is unrelated to money, the post office, the patent system, or any of the other enumerated powers of the federal government. Its regulation is neither necessary nor proper in pursuit of those powers.

At the drafting of the Constitution, the states all had marriage laws of one kind or another. There were wide disparities among them, both then and now, and such disparities have existed at all times in between.


Will Montana Stand Up to the Feds on Everything?

Representative Bill Harris has introduced a bill in Montana that would assert state control over the implementation of federal programs.

H.B. 145, Revise the Montana Federal Mandates Accountability Act,  proposes to be more constitutionally stringent on the interpretation of federal law, and affirms the responsibility of the state to consider the well-being of its citizens in doing so.

“The intent of the legislature is to ensure the primacy of the state of Montana’s legal and political authority to constitutionally implement in and for Montana the policy mandated by federal statutes and to vigorously challenge and scrutinize the extent and scope of authority asserted by federal executive branch agencies when federal agency actions and interpretations are inconsistent with the United States constitution and Montana policy and exceed the constitutional authority of the federal government or are not required by constitutional federal law.”

The bill opens the door for state nullification of all unconstitutional federal acts.


Obama’s Stimulus: A Bit of Pork, a Lot of Opportunism

via the CATO Institute

study [$] published in the winter edition of Political Science Quarterly considers two possible reasons for why the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) failed to sprinkle Uncle Sam’s magic dust onto those areas of the country that were being hardest hit by the recession.

Was it because well-positioned politicians were successful in delivering the pork?

Or was it because the recession created a “window of opportunity” for politicians to quickly spend a bunch of additional money on pet causes, which had the effect of benefitting certain areas of the country?

I’m going to skip right to the answer: the uneven geographic distribution of stimulus funds had only a little to do with traditional pork barreling and much to do with Obama’s then chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel’s famous quip that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

On the possibility of traditional pork-barreling, the authors found no statistically significant relationship between the distribution of funds and whether a county was represented by a politician serving on a congressional committee relevant to stimulus funding. Nor was a relationship found between funding and counties that were represented by a Democrat in the House or Senate. However, a relationship was found between funding and those counties that overwhelmingly voted for the president: