Doesn't Texas have to obey the Supreme Court?

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that Texas’ interpretation of the Constitution and the power of the federal government has to yield to the Supreme Court, the only way to reign in the federal government is to amend the Constitution to take back some power for the states.  A constitutional amendment that would allow a super majority of states to overturn a federal law or Supreme Court opinion is the way we should exercise state sovereignty, right?

A:

The Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves powers not delegated to the feds, to the states respectively.  Respectively means individually or unilaterally.  That is because each state is a sovereign.  Sovereigns who have signed a compact to create an agent (the federal government) do not yield their interpretive power of the compact to the agent, or even to the fellow sovereigns, without losing their sovereignty.

The root cause of the problem is that the Supreme Court has usurped the power of final arbitration of constitutional meaning.  To solve that problem, we need to address it head on, and explicitly state that the Supreme Court is not delegated that power in the Constitution.

This means that the Lone Star State all by its lonesome already has the power to interpret the limits of its agent, the federal government, under the constitutional compact and to enforce that against federal agents within Texas.

To agree to new terms in the compact that gives away this sovereignty will make more difficult solving any one unconstitutional act by the feds and the overall problem of federal overreach even worse.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.