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

    Leg Status - 2023-02-04

    Texas Constitutional Enforcement Legislative Status Report – Feb 4, 2023

    When you are trying to get legislation passed in the Texas Legislature, the first month of the Texas Legislature should be spent gathering information on who is on staff for the legislators, meeting with your legislators who are your potential champions, persuading legislators to put your draft legislation into the long Legislative Counsel queue, and making sure that you have the best champions you can get for the bills you want to see passed.

    In the Texas Senate, committee chairmanships and members have been assigned.  We are still waiting on Texas House committee assignments, and many House members will not decide to champion a bill until they know what committees they are on.  Right now, we are sitting at Day 26 in the 88th Legislature, and that is later than 3 of 4 of the last legislatures.  (The longest was 31 days in 2017.)

    So, let’s review the top bill ideas in the Texas Constitutional Enforcement Legislative Agenda:

    Right to Use Cash and Cash Substitutes Add to Texas Bill of Rights – There are lots of urgent issues for this session because there is a multi-front war on Texas.  But my personal highest priority for this session is getting this passed.  That is because I believe we will need it before the next legislative session comes around in 2025.  The Federal Reserve is already piloting its digital Central Bank Digital Currency (CDBC) as we speak.  I think we are one financial crisis away from implementation.

    The good news is that we have two able champions who have said they will lead in the Senate and House.  Senator Tan Parker filed our bill last session (called HJR 100 then) when he was a State Rep, and has agreed to file it again in the Senate.  And State Rep. Gio Capriglione, who is well respected for his knowledge and leadership on monetary issues, has agreed to file in the House.  We don’t have the SJR and HJR numbers for this session, yet, but stay tuned.

    Click here for more information on this bill.

    Border Security – Legislative Declaration of Invasion and Statute Requiring Repel and Remove During Invasions – I have been disappointed that there does not seem to be much energy around border security so far.  But the Senate is showing leadership by appointing a new committee dedicated just to Border Security chaired by the able leader, Brian Birdwell.  The other two Republicans on the Senate Border Security are Phil King and Pete Flores.  The Democrats are border Senators, Cesar Blanco and Juan Hinojosa.  I heard last week that Senator Lois Kolkhorst has a legislative declaration of invasion in draft in Leg Counsel.  But I could find no one working on a bill to repel and remove when we declare invasion.

    So, I have drafted such a bill and am circulating it, trying to get it into Leg Counsel fast, so we have a shot at getting it filed in time to be heard.  Click here to see the draft language of the required repel or remove bill. Click here for more discussion of who declares an invasion and why.

    On another border security note, I have given feedback to Rep. David Spiller and Senator Bob Hall’s staff on their interstate compact companion bills (HB 82 and SB 237).  The bills contain language requiring Congressional approval for the interstate compacts (as required by Art. I, Sec. 10).  But I recommended adding language to NOT require Congressional approval if the governor or the legislature has declared an invasion because Art. I, Sec. 10 also says that it is not needed in that case.

    Unalienable Right to Decline Vaccination – we have the language in Leg Counsel, but no legislator has yet agreed to champion when it becomes ready to file.  Click here for more information on this issue. 

    Federal No-Knock Raid Bill -  we have an enthusiastic sponsor in the House for this bill.  It is in Leg Counsel, and I hope to announce its bill number and sponsor soon.

    Texas Sovereignty Act -  this bill is farther along than we have ever seen in that it was pre-filed by both chambers.  Our champions are Rep. Cecil Bell, Jr. and Senator Bob Hall (HB 384 and SB 313).  Click here for more information. 

    Rule of Law Enforcement – Big county DAs in Texas have been captured by George Soros and cannot be relied upon to enforce laws fundamental to the liberty and safety of Texans.  On top of that, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has opined that the Texas Legislature cannot delegate independent prosecutorial authority to the Attorney General on separation of powers grounds.  I am pushing the creation of a state level independent prosecutorial office under the judiciary that will have the ability to prosecute election integrity, border security-related matters, public integrity, official oppression, abortion, sedition, and riot.  At least one such bill is in Leg Counsel.  Click here for more information.

    More is in the works.  But that is enough for now.

    If you want to help now, contact the legislators you think might help to ask them to lead on our Border Security legislation and the Unalienable Right to Decline Vaccination.  And keep me posted on who is interested, so that I can give staffs the right documents and information.

    Once bills get filed and assigned to committees, there will be lots more we all can do!

    Toward liberty,

     

    Tom Glass

    Texas Constitutional Enforcement

    www.txce.org

    832-472-4726

    Email:  info at tomglass.org

    Continue reading →
  • Who Declares Border Invasion?

    As I have been urging Texas legislators to declare a border invasion so that Texas can actually #RepelRemove invaders and withstand a challenge to that action at the Supreme Court, the most common question I have gotten is, “When the Constitution talks about an invasion, who does it contemplate making that declaration?  The governor?  Or the Texas legislature?”

    And I ran into a knowledgeable commentator this weekend who said that some people think that only the governor can declare an invasion of a state.  I disagree with that view.  Here are the reasons.

    First, let’s take a look at Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    This provision was put in for a situation that the framers expected, where the federal government actually wanted to do its constitutional duty.  And when a state wanted to formally ask for assistance from the federal government (at least in cases of domestic violence), the legislature was the first choice and the governor the backup.  From that angle, at least, it appears that the framers thought that the state legislatures – as the representatives of the people -- were the proper place to set policy.

    Second, let’s look at the section of the Constitution which sets limits on state action, Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 3 to see what it says about this issue:

    “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.

    This is the clause that tells us that Texas is free to take action without federal constraint when we are in imminent danger or being actually invaded.

    Combine that with the Tenth Amendment, which says, “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.”

    Who decides who can declare the state in imminent danger or that it is actually being invaded?  From Tenth Amendment logic, is the federal government delegated the power to say how a state will declare an invasion or imminent danger?  Answer:  No.  Are the states prohibited from using any method of declaring invasion or imminent danger?  Answer:  No.  So, the each individual state (respectively means individually or unilaterally) has the final decision on how it will declare an invasion or imminent danger.

    And there is one other perspective on who decides monumental issues like imminent danger/invasion – the Texas Constitution.  In the Legislative Department, Article 2 of the Texas Constitution, we find this:

    “Sec. 62.  CONTINUITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS FOLLOWING ENEMY ATTACK.  (a) The Legislature, in order to insure continuity of state and local governmental operations in periods of emergency resulting from disasters caused by enemy attack, shall have the power and the immediate duty to provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of public offices, of whatever nature and whether filled by election or appointment, the incumbents of which may become unavailable for carrying on the powers and duties of such offices. . .”

    In other words, the Texas framers put major policy decisions about governmental actions during enemy attack into the hands of the Texas Legislature.  Enemy attack sounds a lot like invasion to me.

    My bottom line is that the constitutional language leans toward a legislative invasion being preferred, but states can do what they want, and a gubernatorial declaration works, too.  Just because the president won't do his job and the governor does not do his does not take the Texas legislature off the hook.  Far from it, it puts the Texas Legislature front and center in this crisis.

    Why is all this invasion discussion important?  It’s because the U.S. Supreme Court said in a case called U.S. v. Arizona that when it comes to immigration, federal law preempts state law.

    This puts us in the situation where the federal government tells Texans that they are in charge of immigration, and that we cannot do anything about immigration, but then proceed to not only do nothing about violations of federal immigration law, but become active violators of the law using our tax dollars in partnership with the human trafficking business with the cartels.

    Texas desperately needs a way to act to stop the imminent danger to Texans caused by federal failure.  And if we declare invasion and/or imminent danger, we are liberated to do what we need to do to solve the problem.  When someone hauls Texas into federal court over Texas doing what must be done, we will point out to the Supreme Court that we are not in immigration territory, but in invasion territory, constitutionally, and the Supreme Court is likely to agree.

    Click here to see the 2023 Legislative Agenda of Texas Constitutional Enforcement.

    Continue reading →
  • Texas State Level Independent Prosecutor Needed

    The Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) in State v Stephenson last year said that the legislature cannot delegate independent prosecutorial authority to the Attorney General (AG).

    That is terrible news on several fronts. First, we are not very likely to get any substantive election fraud prosecutions out of the very places we need it, the big counties that are controlled by Soros-funded District Attorneys hostile to election integrity.

    Second, the Texas Sovereignty Act as written calls for the delegation of independent prosecution of the Official Oppression Act by the AG, and that provision of the bill as written is now Dead On Arrival.

    Finally, the Soros-funded DAs in big counties are not just refusing to prosecute election integrity.  They are not prosecuting a host of other laws, as well.  They let the 2020 rioters go. Some are saying they will not prosecute Texas abortion law.  We need independent prosecutorial authority delegated to some statewide figure, and the CCA says we can't use the AG for that position.

    I have been talking to a number of folks about how not only will to solve the election integrity problem, but how we can expand the subject matter jurisdiction beyond election code to Official Oppression, abortion, public integrity, riot, sedition, and border-security-related crimes.

    So how do we solve the problem?  A Constitutional amendment could do the trick, but that takes time we don’t have, and more importantly it requires Texas Democrat approval, something which is VERY unlikely to happen.

    I want one of the following solutions:

    • State District Attorney (elected) with the limited subject matter jurisdiction discussed above and statewide independent prosecutorial power. Would want the enabling legislation to call for a special election in November, 2023 to fill the position.
    • A prosecutorial bureau – call it the State Prosecutor’s Office - under the judiciary with the limited subject matter jurisdiction discussed above that can be appointed or elected.
    • I have heard one person opine that the CCA might not accept a State District Attorney because the language of the judicial section of the Texas Constitution (Art. 5) implies without explicitly stating it, that only smaller districts for prosecutors were contemplated. That commentator said he thinks that four or five districts would pass CCA review whereas a statewide district might not.  I would be OK with that IF the districts were arranged in such a way that the large counties did not swamp the votes of the surrounding counties.  The whole reason for this exercise is to ensure that the big counties don’t stop prosecuting laws important to the security to all Texans.

     

    Two other approaches to solve the problem have already have filed bills.  State Representative Keith Bell has introduced a bill to allow adjacent county DAs to prosecute election crimes if asked to do so by the AG. (HB 678).  And State Rep Bryan Slaton has introduced HB 125 to allow the AG to file suit against DAs who have a pattern and practice of not enforcing election crimes, allowing civil penalties. (I have been told that there is at least one Senator working on the same approach as HB 125.)

    While I appreciate those attempts, I am not too excited about either approach. I favor the adjacent county approach over the lawsuits by the AG against DAs. Even if the AG prevails in court against a big county DA, forcing the DA to act, that forced, hostile DA is unlikely to do a good job, and we STILL will not produce much.

    And while the adjacent county route is better than nothing, it puts too much of a burden on already stretched thin DAs in usually rapidly growing jurisdictions that have more than enough workload.  It is likely to be viewed for it is – one more unfunded mandate by the Texas Legislature on the counties.

    I am shopping the three solutions above in both the Senate and the House.  I think there is broad agreement that the problem created by the CCA needs to be fixed.  I hope we can fix it AND do more to ensure that laws needed for ordered rule of law are enforced in Texas.

    I welcome feedback on how we solve this problem that is vital to the security and liberty of Texans.  And I welcome any information about what legislators have what plan to solve this problem.

    Tom Glass leads Texas Constitutional Enforcement (txce.org and Texas Constitutional Enforcement groups on Facebook, MeWe, and Gab).  You can follow him on Twitter (@tomgglass) and reach him via email at info at tomglass.org.

    Continue reading →
  • Texas Refusal to Assist Officers of the Union Act

    As I plow through the bills filed so far, I have found another federal pushback bill filed that is solidly in our wheelhouse, HB 262 by Valoree Swanson and its companion in the Senate, SB 242, by Mayes Middleton. I call it the Texas Refusal to Assist Officers of the Union Act, hearkening to one of four methods outlined by James Madison in Federalist 46 that should be used to resist unconstitutional acts.

    The bill requires the Texas Attorney General to file every month a report in the Texas Register on any rules promulgated by federal agencies that "violates the rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution or exceeds the powers specifically granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution" and is implemented "in response to an executive order by the president." Once such rules are listed in the Texas Register, Texas state agencies and subdivisions "may not cooperate with a federal government agency in implementing . . ."

    This bill has three salient differences in approach to the Texas Sovereignty Act. First, it relies on the opinion of the AG on the constitutionality of federal action rather than a standing committee of the combined chambers of the legislature and sign off by the full legislature and the governor.

    Second, it narrowly focuses on federal regulations implemented in response to a presidential executive order rather than the broad focus of the Texas Sovereignty Act on all federal acts. (I hope to persuade Rep. Swanson to amend the bill to remove the narrowing provisions and go with the TSA broad federal act definition before this goes to hearing.)

    Third, this bill is one of required non-assistance rather then the call to prosecute feds using the Texas Official Oppression Act. Swanson's approach is more in-line with the approach advocated by the Tenth Amendment Center. And it is one that was implemented for firearms laws in the last legislative session.

    I consider this an exciting development and something this group can sink our teeth into this session.

     

    Here is a link to the bill language: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB00262I.htm

    Continue reading →
  • The Boston Tea Party and Texas Resistance to the Great Reset

    On the evening of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty in Boston implemented the famous Boston Tea Party.

    The action of pro-liberty forces against the property of a private corporation, the British East India Company has much relevance, today.  It has special relevance to Texans as we approach the 88th Texas Legislative session where we will try to stop violations of the natural and unalienable rights of Texans by private corporations.  The framers knew that it was not just government, but also private actors that can violate our rights.  And they had no problem with directing action against private corporations when those corporations were threatening their liberty.

    The Boston Tea Party was another resistance in a series of attempts by the British Crown and its beneficiaries to rule Americans.  The Americans insisted that they had the right to self-government.

    The battles began with the Stamp Act in 1765.  Sons of Liberty chapters sprung up all over the colonies and not a penny of stamp tax was collected due to resistance.  The Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but replaced it with the Declaratory Act, stating that the Parliament “had hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America . . . in all cases whatsover.”  They had to show those peasants in America who was boss, don’t you know.

    The Parliament followed up in 1767 with the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on a good number of products imported into the colonies.  The resistance in the form of smuggling and boycotts caused such losses for British merchants, that the Townshend duties were repealed in 1770.  All except one, that is – the duty on tea.  The Parliament still had to show who was boss.

    Effective resistance continued against the duty on tea, so Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773 granting the British East India Company monopoly powers on tea to the colonies and a cut of the duties it raised for the Crown, thereby making it not only the only legal vendor, but the lowest cost vendor, to boot.

    More boycotts and resistance ensued, setting up the Boston Tea Party, where Sons of Liberty men dressed as Indians, dumped the British East India Company tea from three ships into the harbor.

    Parliament reacted to the Boston Tea Party with what the colonies called the Intolerable Acts, which quartered troops in Boston, shut down the harbor of Boston, and contained other punishments for Massachusetts.  By August 26, 1774, the Massachusetts patriots passed a stirring document of resistance called the Suffolk Resolves that presaged the Declaration of Independence.  By April of 1775, the American Revolution had sparked in Lexington and Concord outside Boston.

    We are in our own struggle for self-government against globalists who want to reverse the victories of the American Revolution and return to an oligarchy where they rule and we are serfs serving them.  If I have anything to do with it, Texas will continue our resistance in 2023 to those globalists and their Great Reset.

    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.