About

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.

RESIST, DEFY, NULLIFY!

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:

Come_and_Take_It_flag.jpg

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

    Texas Sovereignty Act Filed in 2021

    As of January 20, 2021, the federal government is in the hands of those who would destroy the Constitution and the liberties of Texans.

    Texans desperately need their elected officials to protect them from the coming tyrannical onslaught. 

    Just in time, Representative Cecil Bell, Jr. has filed the Texas Sovereignty Act in the 87th Texas Legislative Session in the Texas House on January 20, 2021.  The bill number is HB 1215.

    Summary of Texas Sovereignty Act
    HB 1215

    Basic Approach

    Provide streamlined approach for the Texas legislature to formally declare that specific acts of the federal government are unconstitutional.  Creates a standing legislative committee to review federal actions for constitutionality.  The full legislature votes on declared unconstitutional acts and the governor reviews.  Federal actions subject to Texas review are legislation, regulations, executive orders, federal judicial orders or decisions, and treaty enforcement.

    Once an act is declared unconstitutional, law enforcement can arrest and prosecute federal agents who attempt enforcement action under the color of declared unconstitutional acts under the Texas penal code, including explicitly, the Texas Official Oppression Act (Texas Penal Code 39.03).  While maintaining the ability of local district and county attorneys to prosecute, the attorney general is also given prosecutorial power to prosecute federal agents if a federal act has been declared unconstitutional.

    Details 

    • Explicitly states that this bill does not prohibit a public officer who has taken the oath from interposing to stop acts of the federal government which in the officer’s best understanding and judgment, violate the Constitution.
    • Includes canons of construction guiding the analysis of the constitutionality of federal acts. The canons urge reliance on the text and structure of the Constitution and in cases of ambiguity, on sources that evidence original intent.
    • Allows Texas citizens to seek an opinion about the constitutionality of a federal action in a Texas court.

    Rationale

    Our state and nation are dying because the federal government is violating the Constitution every day in many ways – and no one is stopping them.  The feds will never limit their own power.  Texans must honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, and stop federal action in Texas that violates the Constitution.  This requires the exercise of independent judgment about constitutional meaning, rejecting the notion that the federal judiciary is the sole or final arbiter of constitutional meaning.

    This approach relies completely on Texans and Texas officials to secure the liberty of Texans, and can be implemented immediately.  No relying upon, or waiting on other states to secure our liberty.

    Click here for a downloadable PDF one page summary of the Texas Sovereignty Act.

    Representative Bell has filed this bill in the two previous Texas legislative sessions.  In 2019, it was HB 1347, and om 2017, it was HB 2338.  In 2017, Senator Brandon Creighton filed it in the Texas Senate as SB 2015.

    In 2017, the bill gained 5 joint authors and 8 co-authors.  A substitute passed out of committee in the House and died in Calendars.  The language that passed out of committee in 2017 is the starting point for what was filed in 2019 and 2021.

    Continue reading →
  • Who Will Stop?

    At the heart of the constitutional enforcement idea is independent judgment AND action about constitutional meaning - especially by those serving us in government.

    I have laid out what I and others think the Constitution says about the powers and duty of Mike Pence when he presides over the electoral vote count. I have also presented Jenna Ellis' tweak to that proposal.

    The fact is, that IF Pence is persuaded that he has the power and duty to stop the illegality and the unconstitutionality and the fraud and the coup that is in process of being perpetrated, there is nothing that will stop him in his implementation.

    And note, those engaged in the coup are asking who will stop them. Mike Pence is the man who can - and he has a duty to do so.

    Continue reading →
  • Letter to VP Pence re His Constitutional Duty in Counting Electors

    Dear Vice President Pence:

    I urge you to read and adopt the constitutional understanding urged in Gohmert v. Pence in the count of the elector votes on January 6.

    I know it would be easier for you to take the actions that are within your plenary constitutional power and duty if the federal judiciary issued an opinion in agreement with the reasoning in the filings of the plaintiffs in Gohmert v. Pence, but your oath is to your best understanding of the text of the document and intent of the framers, not what others, even a court, tell you it means.

    To save the Constitution, the Union, rule-of-law, the trust of the American people in our government, and liberty, I believe you have a constitutional duty to do the following on January 6:

    1. When you are confronted with the choice of which envelope of electoral certificates you are to open and count from Arizona, you should declare that you find the election in Arizona was not conducted in the manner the Arizona legislature directed, and therefore there are no legitimate electors appointed from Arizona to count. (If the Arizona legislature self assembles and directly appoints the GOP electors who have already voted for Trump, you should declare that the Elector Clause in Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires you to count the elector slate chosen by the legislature.)
    2. If as the Electoral Count Act in Title 3 of the United States Code Section 15 directs, a written objection to your count is made by one or more House members and one or more Senators, you should rule the objection out of order because that section (3 U.S.C. 15) and section 5 is unconstitutional. (You can see the logic for that position in the filings of Gohmert v. Pence.  I will summarize that logic below.)
    3. Because of the known facts of failure to comply with state election law in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, (and maybe other states, including the dueling elector New Mexico) the procedure used for Arizona should also be followed for them.
    4. Note that the Twelfth Amendment sets the number of electoral votes to determine who wins as “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If you declare that an illegally conducted election appoints no one, then the electoral votes for the states who have conducted illegal and unconstitutional elections are not counted in the numbers needed to make a majority, and the majority of the states that did appoint electors will determine who becomes President and Vice President.

    Here is a summary of the logic of the constitutional reasoning in Gohmert v. Pence by the plaintiffs:

    1. The Electoral Count Act, Section 15 submits the dispute over the “count” of electoral votes to both the House of Representatives and to the Senate. The Twelfth Amendment does not delegate that power to Congress.  The Twelfth Amendment delegates the power to count to the President of the Senate alone.
    2. The only role Congress plays in choosing the President under the Twelfth Amendment is when no one candidate receives a majority of the electors appointed. When that condition applies, it is the House that picks the President by state delegation.  Nowhere does the Constitution give any role in picking the President to the Senate.
    3. The Electoral Count Act’s design to default in dueling elector controversies to that certified by the governor of a state is unconstitutional because the Elector Clause in Article II, Section 1, clause 2 gives plenary power to the state legislatures to make this decision. The Twelfth Amendment puts the decision on which of two dueling slates of electors, if any, to count squarely on you as President of the Senate.
    4. The Electoral Count Act, as a procedural law for Congress, is unconstitutional because it is an attempt by one legislature to bind the legislative authority of its successors, a notion which centuries of law and the Constitution rejects.
    5. The Electoral Count Act violates the Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 because it tries to cast a vote or resolution without presenting it to the President for approval.
    6. By purporting to be a law that governs the procedure of the House and the Senate, the Electoral Count Act violates Article I, Section 5, clause 2 by interfering in each chamber’s plenary power to set their own rules of procedure.
    7. The Electoral Count act violates the doctrines of non-delegation, separation-of-powers, and anti-entrenchment.

    The happy situation here is that you, by acting according to your best understanding of your constitutional power and duty and the facts, have the power to save the very document you have sworn you will follow.

    I am not the only one who has said that if the coup in progress is allowed to prevail, rule-of-law, our Constitutional Republic, potentially our Union, and our liberty will be greatly damaged, if not lost.  And restoring constitutional, limited government might not happen for generations.  Indeed, if the theft of the election is allowed to stand, we may enter that thousand years of darkness that Ronald Reagan talked about in his “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964.

    I believe you to be a man guided by morality and principle.  It could be that you are hesitant to exercise your constitutional power to stop the coup because you know that it will be viewed by some as self-interested.  After all, if you do your constitutional duty, you will gain another term as Vice President.

    Please understand that this is a decision based on principle – the principles of the Constitution and the principles that stealing is wrong and violating the individual, natural rights of the citizens of the United States is wrong.  The people you will be serving by following the Constitution are not only current citizens of the United States, accurately representing their true votes.  But you will also be serving millions if not billions of Americans and others around the world by preventing them from living miserable lives under tyranny. By exercising your constitutional duty, you will not be engaged in a selfish act, but a selfless one.

    I will remind you that two Presidents of the Senate have exercised their plenary constitutional power to count disputed electors they thought most proper in our history.  One was Thomas Jefferson who counted electors that ultimately made a difference in him becoming President.  I am glad for America that he did.  It meant that we were free much longer than we otherwise would have been.

    I have one alternative procedural path you may wish to take that may give the American people more information from which they can judge your decision in this matter.  Although I believe you put yourself in the best procedural posture for a correct count by following my first procedural point above, you may choose to use the debate that comes from Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act when a decision is counted and objected to, to educate the American people.

    So, call this alternative 1A.  When Arizona comes up, note that there are two sets of electors and declare that it is your intent to count the electors certified by the governor (the Biden votes).  Then, at least one House and one Senate member will present an objection in writing to that count using the procedure in Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act.  This will split the two chambers apart for debate, where evidence of the coup can be presented to the American people, many of whom because of massive media and big tech censorship, will hear it for the first time.  After such evidence has been presented, you can sustain the objection and refuse to count any Arizona votes after seeing the evidence of how the election was not conducted in accordance with the manner directed by Arizona law.

    If you choose alternative 1A, you still will have to declare the default provisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act to be unconstitutional and to declare that it is your decision to make about what votes, if any, to count under the Twelfth Amendment.

    In addition to the filings in Gohmert v. Pence, I have read several other articles on this topic which may interest you.  Here is one at The Epoch Times by Peter Svab.  And another at American Thinker by Ted Noel.

    Know that you are in our prayers as you make this momentous, historic decision.

    Toward liberty,

    Tom Glass
    Hockley, Texas
    President, Texas Constitutional Enforcement
    www.txce.org

     

    Continue reading →
  • Gohmert v. Pence Filing is Wonderful Constitutional Reasoning

    Click on this link to read the original filing in Gohmert v. Pence attempting to have two sections of the Electoral Count Act declared unconstitutional and to declare that the President of the Senate (Vice President Mike Pence) is the sole arbiter of what electoral votes are counted from contested states.

    I consider it to be a beautiful and sound piece of legal and constitutional reasoning, well worth the time of any citizen interested in constitutional government.

    The case has been assigned to Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle in the Tyler, Texas in the Eastern District Court, a Trump appointee.

    The attorney who signed this complaint is William Lewis Sessions of the Dallas law firm of Sessions & Associates. If the name sounds familiar, he is the son of former FBI director fired by Bill Clinton, William S. Sessions.  He is also the brother of former Congressman and Congressman-elect Pete Sessions.

    Continue reading →
  • Election Word of 2020 - Plenary

    The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin have the power and duty to save rule-of-law, election integrity, the Constitution, and our liberty.
    If only they will use it.
    Art. II, Sec. 1, §2 of the U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct . . ." the electors to vote for president.
    What is known as the supremacy clause in Art. VI, Sec. 2 says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
    That means that state legislatures can convene on their own for the purpose of directly selecting electors despite any state constitutional or statutory restrictions that apply to non-elector selection matters.
    Plenary is just another word for no one can stop them.
    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 · Flag
    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.