What do we do when the federal government violates the Constitution every day in myriads of ways?

Enforce the Constitution!

Texas officials should honor their oaths to defend the Constitution by stopping the feds when thy commit unconstitutional acts.

The Constitution Cannot Protect Us Unless We Protect the Constitution.

The root cause of our political problems is that no one is enforcing the Constitution.  The federal government engages in multitudes of activities not delegated to the feds in the Constitution.

Constitutional Enforcement  -  Our Path Back to Constitutional Government

Texans know that an out-of-control federal government will destroy us.  An insatiable federal government will never limit itself.  We can only restore our Constitution, our liberty, our state, and our union by enforcing the Constitution to stop unconstitutional federal acts.

Texas is the only power that can stand up to federal tyrants to save our Constitution.  We have to persuade Texas officials to honor their oaths and stop the feds as the commit unconstitutional acts.

An act by a fed under the color of unconstitutional law is null and void.  Attempted enforcement by feds violates the Texas Penal code, including the Texas Official Oppression Act.

The Constitution is not a self-enforcing document.  We have to take action here in Texas to stop the destruction of our liberty.

The Supreme Court is not protecting the Constitution!

Art. VI of the Constitution says that it is the Constitution that is supreme - not the Supreme Court or the federal government.  Art. VI also requires EVERY member of government to swear an oath to support the Constitution.

The way we protect the Constitution is to convince our local and state governmental officials - including law enforcement - to stop unconstitutional federal acts.


Resistance to tyranny was the spirit of the founders that created our liberty.  Jefferson said, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."  Texas was born in that spirit:


Actions needed for enforcement:

  • Urge our Sheriffs, DAs, AG, and governor to take action to stop unconstitutional acts in Texas.
  • Urge all Texas officials to not implement unconstitutional acts.
  • Encourage Texas officials to exercise independent judgment about constitutional meaning.
  • Pass Texas legislation to streamline formal declarations of federal unconstitutionality by any branch of state government. (See Texas Sovereignty Act)
  • What's New

    Death by Lockdown

    Frederick Bastiat taught us with his Broken Window Fallacy and Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson that you always have to look at the seen and the unseen. In other words, in order to determine the true effect of a governmental action, you have to compare a model of the world with the policy against a model of the world without the policy. And you can't just narrowly focus on one aspect of the implementation of the policy, you have to look at the big picture to include all of the effects of the policy.
    Applying that lesson to lockdowns and mask mandates You can't just look at what has happened with COVID this year. You have to model what would have happened had there not been lockdowns, and you have to analyze ALL causes of death (and other effects) in both scenarios.
    Tom Woods knows this lesson deep in his bones. And he has applied it for us to see. This is just one of his many devastating commentaries on the topic. The piece is called Death by Lockdown.
    Continue reading →
  • El Paso Texas Appellate Court Stops County Lockdown!

    Good news to be thankful for! Yesterday, the Eighth District Appellate Court in El Paso granted a temporary order halting enforcement of El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego's COVID lockdown edicts, which he had extended through December 1.

    Recall that this is the case filed by El Paso businesses that want to stay open reported on yesterday that the Texas Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin had declined to expedite, opting to wait for the Eighth District to get the job done.

    The order to stop enforcement of the edict is temporary until a full trial on the merits can be conducted.

    Ken Paxton's AG office has intervened on behalf of the State of Texas on behalf of the businesses, so the case name is State of Texas v El Paso County. The case number is 08-20-00226-CV.

    The businesses who filed the suit are Pizza Properties, Inc., Wing Daddy's, Toro Burger Bar, Charcoaler, LLC, Triple A Restaurants, Inc., CC Restaurant LP, FD Montanta, LLC, WT Chophouse, LLC, Verlander Enterprises, LLC, and Bakery Ventures I, LTD.

    The businesses are being represented by Kemp Smith LLP with lead attorney Mark Osborn and assisted by Shelly Rivas and Deborah Trejo.

    Harry County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Travis County, the City of Austin, and Fort Bend County Judge KP George filed amicus briefs on behalf of the El Paso County Judge.

    The Eighth District order was issued by a three judge panel led by Chief Justice Jeff Alley. He was joined in his order by Justice Gina Palafox. Justice Yvonne Rodriguez dissented.

    Continue reading →
  • State Legislatures Have Final Say on Their Electors

    In the race for President of the United States, there are now two burning questions.  First, who makes the final decision about who the electors are from a state?  And second, when there is evidence of widespread fraud, but the fraud has been so effectively done that one can only prove fraud exists, but not its exact scope, what is the remedy to be implemented by the final decision maker?

    Let’s go first to fundamentals -- the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution -- to determine who makes the final decision.

    Article II, Section 1 says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”

    Later it says:  “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States . . .”

    And in the Twelfth Amendment, we find the following process for what happens after the electors meet and vote in their state:

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, . . .  they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed . . .

    So, we have our answer to the first burning question.  It is the state legislature that picks its electors.  The governor does not.  The state judiciary does not.  The state secretary of state does not.  The federal judiciary does not.  The STATE LEGISLATURE does.  Once again, we see the proof of the framer’s design that the states are the masters of the federal government.

    In the first presidential election under the U.S. Constitution in 1788, only 11 states had ratified the Constitution and participated in the federal elections. (North Carolina and Rhode Island were the holdouts that only ratified after the First Congress and Senate had been assembled and after George Washington was president.)

    That year, New York’s legislature could neither decide on a manner to select its electors, nor did it directly select electors.  As a result, only ten states selected electors and elected George Washington in 1788.  Half of those state’s electors were chosen directly by their state legislature.  The others had various schemes for voters picking the electors.  One other had the voters pick a short list, and the state legislature pick the final electors from the voter selected short list.

    And we come to the second question, what if a state legislature passes a statute that directs the manner in which electors are to be chosen, and the people conducting the election engage in election fraud, or allow it to occur?  And let us assume that investigation produces evidence that fraud certainly occurred, but the extent of the fraud is not known because those executing the fraud were successful in covering their tracks?  Who decides what to do then?  And what is the remedy for massive fraud successfully covered up by the fraudsters?

    It is clear that it still is the state legislature that decides whether the election to select electors was conducted in the manner in which they directed.  If the state legislature thinks there is enough doubt that the election was conducted honestly, they have the power to select the electors themselves.  The Constitution made them the sole decider on choosing electors from their state.

    But what role does the United States judiciary, especially the U.S. Supreme Court have in all this?

    Article III, Sec. 2 says:  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, . . .  to Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States.”  So I read that if a presidential or vice-presidential candidate has a controversy over whether a citizen of a particular state is not conducting the election in the manner by which the state legislature has directed via state statute, the federal judiciary can opine on whether the election officials are following the law and issue orders that the law be complied with.

    Given the facts on the ground in Pennsylvania, there may be enough ballots that were received after election day, the counting of which violates Pennsylvania law, that the U.S. Supreme Court can order that those ballots not be counted and change the result from what would have happened had those ballots been illegally counted.

    There may be other such situations in other states, but I do not know the details.  Other state procedures may catch voter fraud in states enough to change currently announced counts.  For instance, it is known that software rejected as insecure by Texas authorities has been found in one county in Michigan to be fraudulently changing Trump votes to Biden votes.  It is my understanding that this was caught by counting paper backup ballots.  There are lots of other counties in Michigan using the same vendor that need to have the electronic results checked against paper.  That could be outcome determinative.

    But what if despite the Supreme Court’s order, election officials in Pennsylvania mixed in votes received after election day with all the other votes?  There is no way now to determine the lawful results.  What if there is other evidence of fraud, but insufficient evidence to prove the fraud’s extent?

    Do not count on the U.S. Supreme Court to save us.  They do not think - and I agree with them - that they have the authority to declare fraud and set a remedy for the fraud by choosing a slate of electors.

    The state legislature can declare that the Trump electors are the electors from its state in such a situation, though.  They just have to have the commitment to honest elections and the Constitution and the will to do so.

    Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the following states:  Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  The Nevada legislature is Democrat.  I am assuming from the evidence available at the moment that North Carolina and Alaska are Trump wins without any need for further action.

    Assuming Biden gets Nevada (not a certainty), without the five Republican states in play, Georgia (16), Pennsylvania (20), Arizona (11), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10), Trump has 232 elector votes and Biden has 233.  Trump needs 38 votes to get to the majority.

    There are several permutations that get him to 270.  Pennsylvania, Georgia, and any one of the others is one likely scenario.  And if a thorough vetting of Nevada shows in an honest count that Trump won it, all that Trump needs from the five Republican legislative battleground states is 32 votes.  Pennsylvania and either Georgia or Michigan does it there.  Any combination of three of the five states does it.

    So, bottom line, if the right three Republican legislatures take their oaths to the Constitution and honest elections seriously, then rule of law, the American people, and Trump win and the forces who would destroy our Constitution and liberty lose.

    Pictured is the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg.

    Continue reading →
  • Building Lifeboats in Case Facebook Sinks Us

    As anyone who is paying attention knows, Facebook is suppressing speech of liberty-oriented people and accelerating the complete destruction of large groups advocating on liberty topics.

    Just last week alone, Facebook destroyed the wonderful This is Texas Freedom Force page that had over 90,000 likes.  That is the group that has done yeoman's work in stopping George P Bush's desecration of the Alamo and on May 30, 2020 literally put their bodies between a mob of thousands and the Alamo to save it from vandalism.

    Open Carry Texas had its 30,000 plus group eliminated on Facebook last week.  That is the group that worked to get permitted open carry of handguns in Texas and that has educated law enforcement and the public about the laws of Texas that allow permitless carry of long guns.

    Our Texas Constitutional Enforcement group that now has over 5300 members on Facebook was made to completely disappear for 18 hours in late July after we shared a livestream of heroic doctors telling how they had saved lives from COVID (in ways that Big Pharma did NOT want us to know about).

    So, we have started preparing for the day when Facebook will permanently ban us by building lifeboats in newly emerging social media sites with Facebook functionality and look & feel.

    The services we have set up shop on are listed below.  You can click on the link for each to see the Texas Constitutional Service there:

    Blabbook (This service is rapidly growing.  It might be the smallest at the moment, but it is owned by a great conservative Texan, Steve Blu.  And you KNOW how we like to let Texans run Texas around here!)

    FreedomLake (This is where Open Carry Texas moved to.)

    MeWe  (Where This is Texas Freedom Force has moved to.)

    Wimkin (A site owned by a Pennsylvania conservative.  The weird name is an amalgamation of the owner's website for streaming content booted off Youtube - worldmustknow )

    And for completeness, here are the links for Facebook.  We have a group, which is the largest and most active.  And we have a page:

    Facebook Texas Constitutional Enforcement group

    Facebook Texas Constitutional Enforcement page




    Continue reading →
  • Did You Assume My Contagiousness?

    I keep trying to hit on ways to communicate the violation of due course of law presented by mask mandates and lockdowns.  The fundamental idea of due course of law is that the law should presume us innocent until being proven guilty.  And another fundamental of due course of law is that the elements of a crime need to be properly specified and each element must be proven before a person can be convicted and punished.

    To respect those fundamental concepts, you cannot define a crime in a way that presumes the most fundamental of the elements in the crime - in this case the actual harm intended to be avoided - to be a committed in the definition of the crime.  But that is what mask mandates do.  The presume you guilty of being a contagious threat to others and punish you if you do not wear the mask, whether you actually ARE a threat to others or not.

    A mask mandate (and a lockdown) presume you guilty of being a threat without even a chance to prove your innocence.

    With this meme's formulation, I play with the ridiculous "Did you just assume my gender?" attack and apply it to the mask mandate.  The use of the formulation in regards to gender is ridiculous because one cannot wish reality away.  You cannot change the DNA you are born with.  So accurately identifying the reality of a person's gender is far from being a failing.  It is a virtue.

    But assuming someone's state of health, presuming them to be contagious and therefore a threat and requiring some restriction of liberty as a result is a violation of the presumption of innocence and therefore due course of law.

    I hope I have not ruined what is intended to be humorous with over-analysis.  But they say many a truth is said in jest.

    The truth is that mask mandates and lockdowns are unjust (and unhealthy) presumptions that everyone is a threat when those presumptions are false in the vast majority of situations.

    Continue reading →
  • See all posts

Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Tommy Howe
    commented 2018-11-04 10:26:16 -0600
    I just joined and I am looking for the petition to sign….where is it?
  • Von Arney
    commented 2018-05-25 09:09:44 -0500
    My heart sings because we have a chance for States and We The People to take back their rights, stop National intrusion into State affairs.

    God Bless Texas and the men and women leading this charge.

    This fight can be won.

    Join the fight and be a part of history.