Fed-Up TX Leaders Take Stand, Tell Feds They Can’t Control Sovereign State

Western Journal – by C Douglas Golden

When Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, it became clear that the most they could do was obstruct.

They couldn’t really pass any bills that Republicans would look at seriously, at least given the fact they weren’t willing to work with GOP members of Congress. They weren’t going to be able to set the legislative agenda. So, what were they going to do? 

Investigate, investigate, investigate! And while most of these investigations involve members of or actions taken by the Trump administration, they’re also interfering in the matters of individual states, specifically Texas.

According to The Washington Times, both the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have decided they want to have a look into Texas’ efforts to combat voter fraud, among other things.

Under Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Lone Star State has been arguably the most aggressive in the union in terms of investigating and fighting voter fraud.

Back in January, the state announced it had found 95,000 potential noncitizens who had registered to vote between 1996 and the present, at least 58,000 of whom had cast a vote in Texas elections.

However, the aforementioned committees have taken an interest in this, mostly because Democrats profess to believe voter fraud doesn’t exist and is instead a pretext to oppress minority voters — as if somehow minorities were less able to obtain voter ID or follow voter registration laws.

According to a news release from Paxton’s office, both committees wanted “privileged and confidential information related to ongoing voter fraud investigations.”

And Texas said no.

“Congress lacks authority to force a sovereign state to produce privileged and confidential documents, particularly those relating to active law enforcement efforts and litigation,” a letter from First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer to the committees said.

“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,” the letter continued. “In this case, that risk would be made particularly acute by the committee’s attempt to force the constitutionally-designated attorney for the State of Texas to divulge privileged and confidential communications with a client concerning the client’s enforcement of Texas law.”

“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,” Mateer wrote. “The Constitution grants some powers to the national government, but reserves to the individual states ‘a residual and inviolable sovereignty.’”

“The House of Representatives’ own rules expressly require their requests and investigations to be ‘related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress,’” Paxton’s office noted in the news release, citing Mateer’s letter.

“There is no congressional power that involves a guarantee of voting rights to noncitizens under Texas law.”

Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican who also served as Virginia’s attorney general, said he would give Texas the edge in this battle.

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

The two issues at stake, according to Cuccinelli, are the sovereignty of individual states as guaranteed under the Constitution and the supremacy clause, which gives the government some advantage in terms of power over the states.

There is legal precedent for Congress investigating individual states, The Times pointed out, most notably the state of Michigan during the Flint water crisis.

However, the Ninth and 10th Amendments are clear. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the Ninth Amendment states.

The 10th states: “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.”

This isn’t the province of Congress. A state has every right, under the Constitution, to conduct an investigation of voter fraud without the interference of Democrats, especially when they’re interfering for the sake of interference.

We’ll certainly see where this goes — there haven’t been any subpoenas yet, merely requests for information, and neither of the committees commented on the letter.

However, if this Congress decides to go further, one hopes Paxton gives the Democrats a lesson in why you don’t mess with Texas.


9 thoughts on “Fed-Up TX Leaders Take Stand, Tell Feds They Can’t Control Sovereign State

  1. Abbott (and Costello) wouldn’t know what a “sovereign state” was if Sam Houston or Davy Crockett hit ‘im in the face with a true Republic of Texas flag…and did these SOBs do anything when said Abbott and Costello forced state employees and Hurricane Harvey victims sign a loyalty oath to a foreign country?

  2. I would respectfully remind all nay-sayers about a decision that is still enforced and relied upon today:

    Richard Mack / Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 899 (06/27/1997) (The Constitution’s structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of “dual sovereignty.” See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. See, e.g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 18-22.); … ([521 U.S. 912] We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 303 U.S. 144 (1992).5 … [521 U.S. 898, 918] It is incontestible that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to [521 U.S. 898, 919] the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State’s territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, which speak of the “Citizens” of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and … those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 414-415 (1938). … [521 U.S. 898, 921] This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in anyone branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” … [521 U.S. 898, 935] We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-bycase weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/898/case.html

    1. There is no state. There is no federal. Through the violations of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, any and all consent from the people is revoked. The people are the true sovereigns.
      If the state and federal governments are the sovereigns, then you are talking operations through the unlawful fraudulent 14th Amendment. Neither the state nor the federal can have any authority over any American national in that American national’s private life.
      You obviously cannot see that the Bill of Rights was what our people fought for and that we are indeed at war right now over that same subject.
      Cites of past events concocted by unlawful courts are irrelevant. This administrative admiralty stands between the American national and his or her rights. The rights are to be invoked and the law that they are is to be obeyed on the spot or heads roll.
      The state and the federal are in breach. We have the equivalent of an open contract. This is f-king war.
      I read plenty of law books when I was young. They are meaningless to an individual free sovereign American national.
      I will not acquiesce to anything coming from the administrative admiralty courts for the occupation, just like my great great great great great grandfather refused to acquiesce to the administrative admiralty of King George.
      Case law is irrelevant in the common law jurisdiction as it eliminates the jury of the peers and gives the corporate appointed judge authorities not granted.
      What the state and federal corporations do to one another at this point is irrelevant. The power is reverted back to we the people and until we reestablish our Bill of Rights as the absolute law intended, there are no states and there is no federal. There is no law but the law of the jungle and the gun.
      I don’t give a rat’s ass about any of the decisions you cited as the system it came from is treachery itself.
      Have the nice day, brother.

    2. Amicus, would not The Bill of Rights and The Common Law simplify all of this?

      And this from what you posted above:

      “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.”

      So many buzz words in there, especially “authority over the people” and “power … augmented,” and “police.” Words designed to subjugate us. And no mention of the sovereign individual. This post is a statist wet-dream and they/it can dream on.


  3. Why do they still play the Republican vs Democrat crap for every problem?

    Can’t they make things just a general American problem, NOT a party problem?

    F$&k political parties! Make them all illegal.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.