Read everything on the website
My proposal does as much as can be done, and as soon as it can be
done. It provides a process by which an authoritative body can hear
and decide whether a federal action is unconstitutional, and the
finding that it is triggers noncooperation with the feds on that
action by all state agencies, and with funding by the legislature, a
fund to pay the legal expenses of any individual Texas citizen who
refuses to comply with the federal action. It is a grand jury with
no bureaucracy attached.
If you read the supporting materials on the site you will find what
would happen if there was any attempt by a state official to enforce
a criminal statute against a federal agent (including a federal
1. The prosecution would be immediately removed to federal court and
dismissed, killing it. That would probably be done within an hour or
2. The arresting state officer would be immediately charged and
tried for the federal crime of interfering with a federal agent, and
would probably be convicted and serve time in prison.
3. Knowing (2) it is unlikely you would ever be able to get a state
officer to make the arrest of a federal agent in the first instance.
That is what happens now. Do you really think federal agents don't
already violate many state laws with impunity on an almost daily
basis? There are already plenty of state criminal statutes that
could be enforced and are not for this reason. That entire approach
has been effectively cut off for more than 150 years.
The only thing that can be done is passive non-cooperation. The U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Printz
established that the feds
cannot compel cooperation. But they can punish obstruction. That
leaves passive non-cooperation as the only option.
There are many things the state could do to make things more
difficult for usurping federal agents: It could shut off electric
power to their offices, requiring them to bring in their own
generators. It could shut off water and sewage services to their
offices, requiring them to haul water in and sewage out. It could
refuse to let the feds house federal prisoners in state detention
facilities, so the feds would have to use their own and perhaps
build more. State agents could refuse to testify in federal court,
which could be compelled but as hostile witnesses their testimony
would likely raise doubts in a jury.
But there are many actions for which the feds need no cooperation by
anyone in the state other than their own agents. Those things are
out of reach of nullification except by juries, and most juries will
convict a ham sandwich unless they are informed by an authoritative
state body such as the one I propose that the federal action is
unconstitutional. Since we probably can't get a federal court to do
that, and state courts don't have jurisdiction to do so, we have to
set up a new kind of body that can authoritatively adjudicate issues
of this kind.
Now one can make the case that passing the bill and attempting to
enforce it would bring so much unfavorably publicity that the feds
would back off and stop trying to enforce their statutes. That used
to work 150 years ago but probably wouldn't today with the control
over the mainstream media the feds have. And it would be at a
terrible price to the hapless state officials whose lives would be
ruined as federal felons, with no provision by the state to even pay
their legal costs. (States are barred from representing them in
court by the 1923 Supreme Court decision Mellon v. Massachusetts
This entire field is vastly more complex than most people realize.
It is critical that anyone attempting reform know what he is doing.
David Simpson is a nice guy but largely clueless on this issue.
On 11/13/[masked]:50 AM, Kurt Hyde wrote:
It appears to me
that your bill does nothing but build an impotent bureaucracy at
a later date.
Jon Roland Campaign http://jonroland.net
2900 W Anderson Ln C[masked] twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/[masked] [address removed]