July 4th, 1776: A Rejection of Centralized Power

On July 4th I have had a mixed sense of wonder and loss. I suppose it’s the same way some grieve for the loss of loved ones during the Christmas season. I am torn because I have the highest level of admiration and gratitude for those that freed themselves from the grips of the British tyranny, yet I do not feel that the cause for which they fought is represented properly in today’s celebrations.

After severing the political bonds, these brave colonists confronted a corrupt government and against all odds won their freedom. The most excellent generation of Americans laid a foundation for future generations by drafting a constitution designed to strictly limit federal power and to, as Jefferson noted, “bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution”. In the era of 1776 our forefathers granted us an incredible inheritance, a historic victory of People over established government.

Unfortunately, over two centuries we have squandered much of our inheritance and every time we look to Washington, D.C. for a “national” solution we further destroy our own children’s guarantees. The legacy and spoils of our celebrated revolution slips away with every stroke of the pen in Washington, D.C. This leaves me with a great sense of loss as the freedoms and liberties that we once enjoyed and the hopes for our children’s future are destroyed by federal politicians acting outside the authority provided them and against the interest of the People. The Bill of Rights specifically denied the federal government the authority to search without probable cause, indefinitely detain without warrants, declare guilt without due process or assassinate without conviction in a court of law. Yet, in today’s warped acceptance of centralized government these are exactly the powers claimed by our general government over Americans.

Details

Separation of Constitution and State?

It seems we have reached a new point of inversion.

Are we at a point where references to the Constitution are now censored by the public education system? The curriculum has long been compromised with Constitutional half-truths, but are we now censoring student’s speeches that reflect on the Constitution? Is it too controversial, or just too obviously true, to allow a valedictorian to point out that the federal government is trampling rights?

According to reports, a North Texas valedictorian’s microphone was recently shut off mid-speech when his speech varied from the submitted script. The speech varied and “…he was talking about getting constitutional rights getting taken away from him.” the microphone was cut off. In fairness to the school, there was a policy in place that microphones would be shut off if the speech went off-script.

However, this trend to micromanage the speech of those that have earned the highest academic position available is problematic. What prompts the school to implement such authoritarian measures of censorship of a valedictorian’s speech? Who’s speech is it anyway?  Why did this valedictorian feel the need to remove references to the Constitution in the draft submitted to the school censors?

Details

Texas’ Firearm Protection Act: Fact and Fiction

The Texas House recently passed multiple gun measures designed to protect Texans from undesired, if not unconstitutional, federal gun laws. Two bills related to federal gun laws, HB 1076 and HB 928, are proceeding and at the time of this writing HB 1076 has passed the final vote in the Texas House, 100-47 and HB 928 has passed as well, 102-31. The bills seek to deny state and local resources for enforcement of federal gun laws and in support of this deny funding to state and local officials that do enforce federal gun laws.

Unfortunately, there is a wealth of misinformation published that obscures the legitimacy of this legislation. For instance, the  Dallas Morning News makes numerous claims inconsistent with facts.

Key statements made in this article are incorrect and mislead the reader regarding the content and legitimacy of the bill’s language. Starting in the third paragraph, Ms. Hoppe begins her summary of a “proposal to nullify new federal gun control laws.”. This is in regards to Steve Toth’s HB 1076.

Ms. Hoppe states: “Those gun laws not already on the books in Texas couldn’t be enforced here under the sweeping and unadjudicated argument that they wouldn’t be constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

It is true that the legislation would reject local enforcement of federal laws. That is the point of the legislation in general. In contrast to the implication, it is very workable in practice as state laws would be put in place as needed. This allows the Texas legislature to draft gun laws that are consistent with the Texas Constitution.

However, Ms. Hoppe’s claim that the legislation challenges the constitutionality of any federal law is false. No such argument is being made regarding the Second Amendment. In HB 1076, Texas is merely refusing to participate in the local enforcement of federal gun laws. In fact, the constitutionality of the gun laws is neither challenged nor validated. They simply deny resources and manpower to enforcement. The Constitutionality of this bill from the federal perspective is clear.  In Printz v. U.S., a 1997 Supreme Court case, Scalia rejected federal comandeering of state and local officers regardless of the constitutionality of the federal law. In other words, the federal government cannot, in any case, force states to uphold federal laws.

Details

TSA: A Modern Day Prima Nocta?

Prima Nocta was an unconscionable policy whereby kings were rumored to have authorized regional lords with sexual rights to other men’s brides on the night of marriage. In clearer terms, rape of the populace, authorized by the king.

I can hear the apologists whispering from the past:

“Well, if you don’t want to be raped by the resident lord, don’t get married.”

If implemented, the primary goal of Prima Nocta in medieval times would have been to bring a population to it’s knees in absolute submission. Kings would have done so to exert unchallenged power over an occupied territory, thus proving their superiority. Since the regional lord held both the physical power and this support of the political system no peaceful recourse would be left to the people. The psychological impact would have been great leading to rapid submission, at least for a time.

At the hands of the TSA, Americans are increasingly faced with a limited implementation of Prima Nocta as our own family’s private parts are fair game to the groping fingers of this federally supported agency. While the TSA’s current actions do not amount to rape, the desired effect of the practice is the same. The apologists today are already making the following argument:

Details

14 Governors Threatened, Hoax?

When I first saw this article entitled “14-Governor Threatened with Immediate Arrest by Obama” published on Canada Free Press I immediately contacted the editor. It initially seemed like a hoax to me, but if true was big news. Given the wild topic, I only found the article’s validity possible because of the strong reputation that…

Details

New Grassroots Organization: WE TEXANS!

cross-posted from the Texas Tenth Amendment Center I thought the following invitation was worth sharing. Looks like a promising new grassroots group that likely will have a strong 10th amendment focus! —————————————————————————————— The battle for private property ownership and state sovereignty continues in Texas! I hope you will join me for the official launch party…

Details

The EPA can go to Hell, and I will go to Texas

Last week, the feds sent the Environmental Protection Agency out to harass the sovereign state of Texas. Texas needs to reclaim the spirit of Davy Crockett, when he famously proclaimed “you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas”; and send the federal agency packing. Here’s why and how. EPA’s Goal is…

Details

Abandon the Constitution to Save it?

Based on ideas from Cokie Roberts’ recent article found here, it is hard to draw any conclusion other than she prefers a dictatorship of the federal government to the balance of power guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Obamacare has been signed into law. However, there are a number of other checks and balances built into…

Details