May 1, 2011 in the Year of Our Lord
As I noted in my past missive, I firmly believe that State nullification is a very real option for the Republic of Texas to exercise in defense of the liberty of all Texicans. I have studied the papers and pamphlets of many a notable and wise personage, and I have found much to support the case of nullification. While nullification is not explicitly mentioned in the compact between the several States and the United States, it is none the less greatly implied. I shall endeavor to make my point clear in a language most politicians and bureaucrats would not comprehend ... plain English.
Much has been said about the position and role of the several States within the framework of the union as a whole. Are the States a subordinate entity or an equal partner in governing? It would seem that in order to determine the rights of the States, one must first define this relationship. However, I am, at this time, only interested in the relationship between the Republic of Texas and the United States.
Texas has a rather unique status among the States. It was annexed by a Joint Resolution of Congress rather than a formal Treaty of Annexation. Numerous attempts to annex Texas by formal treaty fell apart for various and sundry reasons. Most of these involved regional politics and feelings. Never the less, Texas was admitted to the union for better or worse on June 23, 1845 upon the consent of the representatives of the people. In July of that year, a Constitutional Convention met at Washington on the Brazos to craft the Texas State Constitution.
Under the terms of the resolutions, Texas was admitted with all the powers and privileges granted to the original States of the union … including a means of redress. It MUST be understood that the terms of annexation were agreed to by the United States government and “The Republic (State) of Texas” on behalf of its people. This explicitly indicates that the State is a partner to the terms of annexation and to the powers relinquished and retained under the Constitution of the United States. In other words, the Constitution of the United States is a compact or agreement between the federal entity and the States in their sovereign capacities. The States agreed to yield only those powers explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution and no others. All remaining powers were to continue to be the province of the State and its people.
So, assuming a compact of equals, it behooves us to address the remedies available to the State of Texas whenever the federal government egregiously exceeds its constitutional authority. What exactly is the State of Texas to do during a siege of power? Why, resist of course. Whenever the federal government steps over the boundary of enumerated powers, the State of Texas simply says “We do not recognize this breech of constitutional authority. We declare it null and without force in our lands.” It isn’t rocket science. The State of Texas simply refuses to let the federal government exceed its authority within the boundaries of the State of Texas. Period. Further, the State of Texas denies the federal government the right to enforce its unconstitutional will upon the “people” of Texas. This is called interposition. The State of Texas interposes its will and protections between the people and the encroachments made on their sovereignty. In point of fact, if our leaders are worth our trust, they will see to it that the minions of the federal politic are held powerless and subject to arrest if they fail to heed the warnings of the State. Beware! This is no idle threat by the State.
The concept of nullification and interposition were firmly espoused by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Both of these documents put forth the truth that there is no final arbiter of federal encroachment, for who would this be? There are only two parties to these contests, the United States and the sovereign State. Who decides which is the court of final appeal? Some would have us believe it is the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an interesting case of near sightedness. The SCOTUS is a part of the federal government. It can hardly be expected to side with the States even if it was so inclined. As a department of the federal government, SCOTUS is scarcely impartial. So who does decide? The answer, quite simply, is … no one. The federal government and the sovereign State are co-equals. Neither can force its unconstitutional will on the other unless the other capitulates and refuses to defend its sovereignty. Therefore, we have a constitutional stalemate. The federal government is precluded from enforcing its unconstitutional will on the people of the State of Texas. It may do so in other States to be sure. That is their individual problem.
If we, as Texicans, are to retain our liberty and the liberty and well-being of our heirs, we MUST insist that our State leaders do their job and declare our will to resist encroachments on our lives and enduring rights as a free people. They must interpose the might and power of the great Republic of Texas between us and those who would reduce us to humble vassals of the federal state.
It can be seen that nullification is a far better remedy than the more distasteful option of secession. Secession is a statement of failure. We have failed in our commitment to the union, and it has reneged on its promise to protect the States. It matters not who instigated the grievance that precipitated the act of secession, only that it became necessary. The other option I mentioned in my last is that of submission. This is no option. It is total and abject surrender to the forces of evil. I know not what others may do but I shall not submit. I am too old and set in my ways to bend or yield. If my leaders at the state level do not do their sworn duty, I shall stand against them in print, speech and actions. Docility does not run in my family. Be warned.
American by Birth, Texan by the Grace of God
The Old Texican