By Darrel Mulloy

(Too bad nobody’s using it any more)

“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.”

Article one section eight of the Constitution lists the specific powers that are delegated to the United States, meaning the central authority in Washington DC, and the tenth amendment quoted above leaves all other powers to the respective states and their people.

Washington DC was designated to be the seat of the government that was created by the individual states to represent them as a body when dealing with foreign powers. It was felt that doing so would ease any confusion that would ensue with thirteen separate states doing negotiations on their own. The thirteen nation states that composed the then United States were still independent states, and if there had been a provision that each state give up its sovereignty, the union would never had been formed.

The guarantees in the Constitution that each state had unlimited powers and that Washington DC had very limited powers allowed each state to be secure in their ability to govern themselves.

So, what happens when state government officials refuse to or neglect to enforce the Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic?

It would seem the simple answer would be that it is then up to the individuals; the people; to refuse to comply with any mandates that have been passed down from Washington DC that are not constitutional. After all, the tenth amendment gives equal credence to the states respectively or the people, and the word “or” in the amendment signifies that is up to either or both. The only question then is, how many people constitute “the people”? Is it each individual or a small group of individuals or does it require that the whole body or a majority of these people can make such a decision?

I am not familiar with a case where such a decision has been tested, and if tested, how is it to be decided? Would a court of law, which is in violation of the Constitution by allowing such unconstitutional mandates to be declared law, be allowed to make such a decision? Whether a state or federal court, their oaths of office should have required them to declare those very laws illegal in the first place, forbidding them to have taken place as soon as they were voted on by legislatures.

What we are faced with in reality, is a government that has somehow taken complete control over our lives because of a compliant court system that has turned a blind eye to violations of the very Constitution that established them as the arbiter for the people. The courts, instead of overturning unconstitutional law, have instead begun making law from the bench, negating the rights of the people and the intent of the Constitution. We have an executive branch making laws through Presidential Directives and Executive Orders that are in direct violation of the Constitution, and a congress all too willing to surrender its role as law makers to an out of control executive branch.

What are “we the people” to do? We at the Texas Nationalist Movement have what we feel is the answer, at least for Texas. Texas, as do other states, has a constitutional right to leave the union. We in Texas also have a written agreement with the federal government at the time of our joining the union, which gives Texas the right to leave that union. At the Texas nationalist Movement, we feel that the time to exercise that right has come.

We are trying to get enough signatures on a petition to require our state government to allow a vote of the people on the question of secession. We are not demanding secession, only a vote of the sense of the people of Texas on the issue of secession. If it is proven that the majority of voters in Texas favor Texas independence, the next move would be to demand that the leaders in our state government issue a declaration of independence from the United States and declare Texas an independent nation.

Some want to use the tool of nullification, rather than secession, and that would be a move in the right direction. However, that tool has already been available to us through the tenth amendment, which has not been enforced by the state. Why should the people expect that special legislation such as the proposed HCR 50 would change what the state already has a right to do under the tenth? It would not be long before things would be the same as they are at present, if there is any change at all.

Once nullification has proven to not work any better than the way our leaders now enforce the tenth amendment, the only logical next step would have to be declaring independence from Washington DC control.

Either we are willing to sit back and continue with the same old same old, or we are for doing what we can to change things to once again make the people of Texas free and independent. If you are interested in seeing such a change, the Texas Nationalist Movement would like you to come to its website and sign its petition requesting a vote of the people on the issue of Texas independence. The site is www.texasnationalist.com and if you are registered to vote in Texas we would like you to add your name to the growing list of those who have already signed up. If you are not yet registered, we ask that you do so and join us in our effort to once again make Texas a great nation.