States' Rights: The Foundation of Our Republic


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.

-- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
Good Monday morning! I pray y'all enjoyed a
loving and blessed Valentine's Day.
When some gaze upon the title of this week's
missive, they may immediately construct a negative connotation
for the words "states' rights." There are those who will weigh
these words against the annals of American history associated
with slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, and segregation. The funny
thing is that the people who think of states' rights in those
references are of the same political party who gave us these dark
corridors of our history: the Democrat Party. Perhaps that is why
the progressive socialist left is so very willing to revise and
erase our history.
However, those of us who call ourselves
constitutional conservatives -- you know, those pesky right-wing
extremists -- states' rights have a different, and vital,
meaning.
The Tenth Amendment was very clear in
prescribing that the enumerated powers not specified, delegated,
to the federal government were reserved to the sovereign States
and the people. The respective states of the new United States of
America, those free and independent States, knew that there had
to be a declaration of individual rights, the Bill of Rights, in
our Constitution before ratification.
Remember, it took three years to attain
ratification of our Constitution. Those first 10 Amendments to
our Constitution were critical and formed the foundation of the
relationship between the federal government, the states, and the
citizens.
Today, that relationship, which is often
called the principle of federalism, is under assault. Today, we
have the resurrection of an onerous and intrusive federal
government. One that is not governing based upon the consent of
the governed, but, instead, rule by way of edicts, mandates,
decrees, and orders. A few weeks back, we discussed the dangers
of executive overreach.
So, how do we restore the right and proper
constitutional relationship, or balance, between the entities
aforementioned?
There are those who would say that the
federal government reigns supreme over the States, based upon the
Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2. The Supremacy Clause
states, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The keywords in this clause are the ones I
have bolded and underlined, "which shall be made in pursuance
thereof." That means that yes, the laws of the land are supreme
as long as they are made in pursuance of the Constitution. In
other words, when we have those who are pursuing an ideological
agenda that is not consistent with the established laws of the
Constitution, it is not supreme. And no, you do not have to have
paid a whole lot of money to be a lawyer to realize that.
Let's look at this example.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 states, "No
State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter
into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in
such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The above excerpt from our Constitution
clearly specifies a restriction on a sovereign State. It
articulates an enumerated power for the federal government. But,
the bolded and underlined statement provides the terms under
which a State may take, and be granted, these powers.
Let's apply this to the case of Texas and our
shared border with a foreign power and nation, Mexico. If
President Joe Biden decides -- by Executive Order, thus, not
pursuant to our Constitution -- to enact an open border policy,
the State of Texas, and other border states, have the right to
protect themselves from the "invasion" of illegal immigration.
Yes, illegal immigration does present an
imminent danger to the State of Texas and does not admit delay.
Texas is the number one state in America for human and sex
trafficking. Texas is dealing with the problem of the Sinoloa and
other drug cartels operating within its state borders, and rising
gang violence and drug smuggling. In this era of COVID-19 it is
an imminent danger to the citizens of Texas to be exposed to
those potentially infected with the virus. Lastly, Texas should
be able to deport those here illegally, especially those guilty
of committing crimes, violating our rule of law.
Under the verbiage of Article 1, Section 10,
Clause 3, Texas should be able to enact an OPCON (Operational
Control) relationship of federal government assets within our
border to secure the border and its citizens. This portion of our
Constitution enables Texas to take action -- based upon imminent
danger -- and not rely upon the federal government: the Biden
administration.
Along those same lines, there is also the
concept of constitutional nullification, something the State
legislature of North Dakota is looking to pass. Simply stated,
States can assert their right, under the Tenth Amendment, to
nullify any law or order emanating from the federal government
that, again, is not pursuant to the Constitution of the United
States and our rule of law.
Thomas E. Woods Jr. wrote a book on this
issue called "Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st
Century." You can also review an article he wrote on August 27,
2015, for the Tenth Amendment Center titled, "Nullification is
Not Unconstitutional."
Now, I can hear the leftists who troll our
site about to scream. Funny thing, when the left was going around
and unconstitutionally establishing sanctuary states and cities
for illegal immigrants, conservatives were told to shut up.
One of our eight Legislative Priorities for
the Republican Party of Texas is ending the murder of preborn
children. The left would have us believe that abortion is the
"law of the land," but Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision,
and last time I checked the Constitution, courts do not make law.
The same would apply to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that
supposedly made same-sex marriage the "law of the land," a case
that overturned the decision of the voting electorate in
California (2008) when a same-sex ballot initiative failed.
Courts do not make law. Can someone show me where the federal
government can mandate marriage in our constitution?
The progressive socialist left's ideological
agenda cannot, and must not, become the basis for establishing
the "law of the land," and States are empowered to reject and
nullify those agenda-based incursions. The Constitution is a
restraining document on the powers of the federal government.
Foundational to our Republic are the powers reserved to the
sovereign States and the people.
Consider HRs 1, 127, and 130, which the
Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives are considering.
The Republican Party of Texas has Election Integrity and
Constitutional Carry as Legislative Priorities for these reasons.
States can simply reject and nullify these attempts to federalize
our elections -- a State-level responsibility -- which would
undermine our Second Amendment right.
In America, if my numbers are correct,
Republicans control 67/99 State legislatures. The foundation of
our Republic resides in strong, principled, resolute State
legislatures that understand their Constitutional duties, roles,
rights, and powers. I do support HB 1369, here in Texas, which
would allow the citizens to decide on TEXIT.
But, ask yourselves: why would you run away
when our Founding Fathers gave you the tools to nullify the
tyranny and totalitarianism of the federal government? Why run
away from those who are taking unconstitutional actions, when you
have the right and power to say no? Why run away from those who
are doing wrong, when you have the moral high ground?
The preamble of the Constitution talks about
forming a "more perfect union." To do so, the first thing is to
establish justice. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the
Constitution grants the States the ability to "enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State," in the case of imminent
danger.
I would offer that progressive socialist
leftism, Marxism, the ideological agenda of the left, poses that
imminent danger for our Constitutional Republic.
Steadfast and Loyal,

LTC Allen B. West (Ret.)
Chairman
Republican Party of Texas






































Paid for and Authorized by the Republican
Party of Texas

P.O. Box 2206
Austin, TX 78768



































Unsubscribe

This message was intended for: [email protected]
You were added to the system February 10, 2021.
For more information please follow the URL below:
[link removed]

Follow the URL below to update your preferences or opt-out:
[link removed]

To unsubscribe from future mailings, send an email to mailto:unsub-64498937193-echo3-AE44BCE9096C5A54104873AD5E09066B@emailsendr.net?Subject=Unsubscribe&body=Please%20remove%20me%20from%20further%20mailings
with "Unsubscribe" as the subject line.