Texas House Bill 149 (HB149), The Texas Liberty Preservation Act (Larson; HD-122), was placed into the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee on 6 Feb 2013.

The objective of HB 149 is to stop indefinite detention by nullifying Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.  The bill includes criminal penalties for federal agents who attempt to carry out such “indefinite detentions” within the state of Texas – 1 year in prison and up to $10,000 fine.  (more information on the bill here)

Tenth Amendment Center-Texas requests your immediate help by contacting Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility committee members to express your support for HB 149.  We urge you to CALL and EMAIL.  Strongly, but respectfully, inform the committee members that you will accept nothing less than a YES vote, which will allow the full state house to debate and vote on the bill.

Committee members include:

Chair—Rep. Brandon Creighton (R) (brandon.creighton@house.state.tx.us  (512) 463-0726);NDAA

Rep. Cindy Burkett (R) (cindy.burkett@house.state.tx.us (512) 463-0464);

Rep. Eddie Lucio (D) (eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us (512) 463-0606);

Rep. Scott Turner (R) (scott.turner@house.state.tx.us (512) 463-0484), and;

Rep. Armando Walle (R) (armando.walle@house.state.tx.us  (512) 463-0924).


President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 into law in December 2011. Under the pretense of combating terrorism, Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA of 2012 sets forth U.S. laws regarding the indefinite detention of “covered persons” whom the federal government suspects of being involved in undefined terrorist activities. The objective of HB 149, The Texas Liberty Preservation Act, is to challenge the constitutionality of the NDAA of 2012 (hereafter referred to as “NDAA”) by nullifying Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA .

Within the NDAA, numerous ambiguities exist with the federal government’s method of identifying, classifying and detaining individuals deemed as “terrorists”. The most objectionable clauses, however, reside within Sections 1021 and 1022 (EOP, 2011[1]) (NDAA, 2011[2]). Specifically:

  • The term “covered persons” is unnecessarily vague and offers no specific protection or exclusion for Texas citizens from unlawful seizures, arrests, and/or confinement;
  • The words “any person,” “belligerent act” or “hostilities” are subjective and ambiguous, representing threats to Texans’ right to free speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of the press;
  • “Detention under the law of war” is unenforceable as the U.S Congress has not passed a declaration of war. Further, Texans held without charge is a clear violation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus doctrine;
  • Any detainment “without trial” violates a Texas citizen’s right to a speedy trial. In addition, an off-shore trial in a United Nations international court (alluded to within the NDAA) is a violation of a Texas citizen’s right to a trial by one’s peers;
  • Although NDAA White House and Senate sponsors maintain the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the NDAA of 2012 “affirms” the federal government’s authority to detain Texas citizens indefinitely and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

The detention provisions of the NDAA of 2012 (Sections 1021 and 1022) have received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and others who are concerned about the ever growing scope of the President’s authority, including contentions that “covered persons” may be held indefinitely and would include US citizens in general, and Texas sovereign citizens specifically.

Steve Baysinger
Latest posts by Steve Baysinger (see all)