Based Texas again asserts its Sovereignty

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Since everyone is in the habit of saying "The United States is..." instead of the "The United States are..." (the latter being the original language in use until around the time of Lincoln), it's good to have states like Texas issue these reminders every now and then, that the United States are NOT a single country or political state.

The states of North America derive their political authority from the people of their respective states, not from the compact of our union (the US Constitution).


Texas asserts sovereign immunity against Congress

Texas is asserting its sovereign immunity against Congress, telling Democrats on two congressional committees this week that the state has no obligation to comply with their investigative demands.

Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office says that as a state with sovereign powers under the Constitution, Texas can’t be treated like a federal agency or Cabinet secretary who can be compelled to comply.

“Texas does not draw its authority from the United States or the United States Constitution, but from its status as a dual sovereign within the union,” Jeffrey C. Mateer, first assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter Monday to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Mateer fired off a similar letter Wednesday to the House Ways and Means Committee rebuffing its attempts, saying the state wouldn’t stand to be treated like a “subdivision of the federal government or a private citizen.”

“Granting Congress the power to exercise ‘oversight’ over the constitutional officers of a state engaged in the lawful exercise of that state’s core authority would undermine the fabric of our system of dual sovereignty,” Mr. Mateer wrote.

The defiance in some ways tracks that of President Trump, who has said House Democrats’ investigations into the president’s business, family and myriad official actions are harassment.

Texas is objecting to Democrats’ requests for documents probing the state’s efforts to clean up its voter rolls, and documents detailing the state’s efforts to protect faith-based adoption and foster care providers against an Obama-era rule about working with same-sex couples.

The clash could break new legal ground.

Ken Cuccinelli, a former Republican attorney general in Virginia, said he never encountered the situation during his time in office, but he added that two constitutional principles are at stake: the sovereignty of states and the supremacy clause, which gives the federal government an edge in clashes with states.

He said Texas makes a strong case in its letters for why it will prevail.

“Congress doesn’t get to do oversight over states — period. Nor can they compel action by state officers,” he said. “If I were a betting man, I’d take Texas and give two touchdowns on this one.”

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said the House committees have issued requests only for documents. Things will get more complicated if either committee feels strongly enough to approve subpoenas.

Mr. Blackman said Texas could try to head that off by suing first, picking a court in Texas and asking for a temporary restraining order against having to turn over any documents while the state argues its case that its officers aren’t subject to federal demands.

He said prior Supreme Court cases have held that Congress can’t “commandeer” a state to enact laws, nor can it force state officials to perform tasks such as run background checks on firearms purchases.

“I usually think of commandeering in the context of legislation, but I don’t see any reason why you have to limit it to legislation,” he said. “It’s [that] Congress can’t give orders pursuant to legislative powers to tell states what to do.”

Neither the oversight nor Ways and Means committee responded to requests for comment on Texas’ challenge, nor did the office of Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat who chairs an oversight subcommittee looking into the voting issue.

After a previous exchange, though, the oversight committee brushed aside Texas’ claims of sovereignty and insisted that the information would eventually be turned over.

http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/16/texas-asserts-sovereign-immunity-against-congress/

The "Supremacy Clause" is a popularized myth, just like the idea that the Constitution separates church and state in the US (it doesn't -- only the establishment of a national religion).

And just as states such as Massachusetts kept their Puritan religion explicitly a part of their state constitution until around 1830 without legitimate challenge, so did early state courts overturn US Supreme Court decisions. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison themselves wrote documents in the late 1790s re-asserting that the Constitution is a strictly limited document and that the feds have absolutely no powers outside of those clearly stated, and that states have the absolute right to disregard federal laws outside of those limited bounds.

Remembering and re-emphasizing this fact will help the US decentralize out of Washington and back to the states and local communities that make up the United States.

[shaberon]

That is interesting he used the term "dual sovereign", which makes little sense, aside from admitting the Fed is a sovereign that all the Texans have surrendered to. In the meaning of "sovereignty", his state has no people. No states do, since everyone has surrendered, and is a subject.

I admire the intra-governmental finger in the eye, but, there cannot be two sovereigns of the same place. All of the property is surrendered, so the state has no land, nor has it any people. They will have to reject real estate and citizenship in order to ever have them. The Fed only has jurisdiction where it has been given to them, which has been done by everyone, everywhere, via those two systems. If you quit giving them authority, they're reduced to the land they own, such as around courthouses and military bases.

They are arguing over voter rolls--another sign of subjugation. Only people who are in the Fed vote for the Fed. So if you are in it, and not being paid, you have become their free employee.

This is reflected in the language of "the U. S. are", instead of "is", similarly to looking at the Constitution, it was intended to establish government "for" the U. S. rather than "of" it. The Fed is a "foreign power" with respect to the states. If you turn to Article Seven, it protects private property paid for with lawful money. If anyone had that, judges could not scarf their stuff. Instead, we have exactly what Jefferson warned of, everything tied into mortgage and estate, debt and legal tender, and people going homeless where the ancestors spilled blood to break this chain.

I doubt any government will lift a finger about that, but any natural human could, by refusing the citizenship, and everything related to it, like residency. It's ironic that this power or freedom has never moved an inch. It's just buried in "democracy" (subjugation). Refuse the "privileges and benefits" swindle, and you are back to your endowed rights, with almost no trace of any federal anything. The (potential) people always have the power to eliminate the federal predator just by an act of will; any kind of compromise is surrender. Complicated issues like secession are not even necessary; all the constitutions protect whatever is private. Just use the system the way it was made to work. It's still there. Hasn't budged. Nothing violent or legally complicated is necessary, just quit participating in surrender.

"The United States is a democracy" uses violence to install the same system world-wide.

"The United States are sovereign nations" is an arrangement where the federal can do little besides charge import duties, intended to prevent democracy from occurring.

I think this is an example where someone is allowed to "criticize the government", but if he had really fundamentally challenged its "principles", they would probably rattle some blackmail chains or just snuff the guy. It would be tough for any politician to admit that, if run properly, the economy we know, largely involving military, banking, and insurance, would cease. It would revert back to resources, and, I think, greater value; a person would be able to work something like twenty hours a week, and be able to afford the basics well enough. No one would spend their lives working full time for someone else if housing was not so outrageously expensive, or, at least, you would not fritter this way and that, trying to pay this tax and that insurance on top of the cost to a bank. All those agents would be reduced to producing shoes or some kind of tangible goods that someone might actually want, instead of siphoning wealth at a fairly shocking rate.

[Satori]

The "Supremacy Clause" would apply, if at all, only to laws that are promulgated under the powers and duties granted to or imposed upon the Federal/National government under the US Constitution and which "laws" do not exceed the limitations and disabilities imposed upon the federal/national government by the US Constitution. Any laws that are enacted, whether sought to be enforced or not, that are ultra vires, that is, which exceed the limitations and disabilities imposed upon the federal/national government by the Constitution are void and of no force and effect and, thus, cannot reign supreme over the laws of the States or the will of the People.

The foregoing is also true as to the States under their respective State Constitutions. That is, laws enacted by States that are contrary to the limitations and disabilities imposed under their respective Constitutions are ultra vires and null and void as to the People of the State.

I too was struck by the use of the term "dual sovereign." That in itself demonstrates some naivety at best, or perhaps a power grab, by the State of Texas vis-a-vis its relationship to the People of Texas. The relationship of the People to the States and National Government is that of a sovereign in which the People (and in turn the States) to an extent conferred limited powers on the National government (and the State where a Person resides) to act on behalf of and in the interests of the People. Sovereignty is not dual. It is tertiary. There are three levels or relationships of sovereignty one to the other, not two. The People, the States and the National government. The powers of the States and the National government (and their limitations and disabilities on these powers) find their origins in the legitimate will of the People; who are the ultimate sovereigns.

Wait...I think I hear the thought police coming.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

That is interesting he used the term "dual sovereign", which makes little sense, aside from admitting the Fed is a sovereign that all the Texans have surrendered to.

I think the idea is dual spheres of influence, but there are many different legal philosophies, particularly in Texas, that he can be borrowing his philosophy from.

The states agreed to the terms of the Constitution as a compact with one another, but each individual state had its own legal traditions and government already established before joining. In my opinion, you'd have to defer to the government of whichever state is in question, in order to define what the relationship is between "the people" (or who that even means), the state, and the government in Washington.