Jon: Here is a revised and expanded version of PIML 96051801. You might want to use it to replace the version on the page. It includes the PIML 960527XX postings. Bill ================================================================== The Republic of Texas Movement a Dream of 'Quick-Fix' Liberty with No Foundation by Bill Utterback The Republic of Texas movement (RT) is calling for Texas patriots to join in their dream of 'quick fix' liberty. There is, regrettably, no quick fix for our problems with our state and, especially, federal governments having gone out-of-control. We can regain control of our out-of-control governments - but it will require hard work and dedication. RT's dream is based on the myth that Texas was never annexed as a state in the Union. Many Texas patriots have joined in this dream, almost to the point of becoming a political religion - but the fact is that the dream has no foundation. I purchased fifty copies of the new RT magazine for sale in my bookstore and asked Laurie Wiglesworth of WOAI Radio to see if she could schedule the publisher, Wes Burnett, on Carl Wiglesworth's talk show. Then I eagerly read the magazine, looking for the proof of RT's claims. When I did not find proof in the magazine I read everything on the RT internet web page. When I did not find proof on the web page I asked for evidence of RT's claims April 30 on the RT computer e-mail mailing list. RT has promised to answer my questions. I'm still waiting for answers. First of all, we are talking about the geographical area known as "Texas" and the people who either were born there or who have lived there long enough to claim Texas citizenship. All legalisms aside, there is only one physical "Texas" and only one physical "people of Texas." The people of Texas have the inalienable right of self determination; which is to say that the current people of Texas have the right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. This means that, notwithstanding constitutions or the so-called "law of nations", it has been in the past and is now up to the people of Texas to choose the government they desire. No outside group (such as the federal government) or no subset of the people of Texas (such as the RT General Council) has the right to impose any form of government upon the people of Texas. No outside group or subset of the people of Texas has the right to claim to be the government of Texas until specific, limited powers of government are delegated to that group or subset by the people of Texas. RT recently published a document on their internet web page. This document, dated April 21, 1996, is entitled "Diplomatic Notice of Perfection of International Relations Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the "Republic of Texas."" I would think that RT would want to put forth their strongest arguments in a document of this importance. If this is all that RT has to offer, then RT has no foundation at all. I have moved from being a RT supporter to feeling that RT is a dream of liberty which will vanish when RT supporters awaken to the fact that RT has no foundation. Until this happens, Texas patriot energy and resources are being diverted from useful causes which offer opportunities for effective action. Paragraph one of the RT document states: That no clause of perpetuity or the right of annexation of a foreign nation ever existed in the Constitution of the united States of America or within the Constitution of the Republic of Texas in 1845 to perfect a permanent union in accord with the law of nations either then or now in effect in accordance with the Foreign Relations Law of the United States with respect to a Joint Resolution dated March 1, 1845. Even though the paragraph is worded to say that no clause of right of annexation of a foreign nation existed in the federal Constitution to effect a permanent union, what it suggests is that nothing in the federal Constitution allows annexation of a foreign nation. This is untrue. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union . . ." This is followed by three specific limitations on this broad power, all three of which are concerned with existing states, and none of which are concerned with foreign nations. Congress has the delegated power to annex Cuba or the moon as a state if that seemed desirable, and the manner of annexation is left up to the discretion of Congress. Annexation of a foreign nation would need to be accomplished by a treaty with that nation which would require a two-thirds vote of the federal Senate. This was attempted in 1844 in regard to Texas but the federal Senate rejected the proposed treaty by a vote of thirty-five to sixteen. This was a good thing, too, as the treaty - if accepted by Texas - would have given all Texas government lands to the federal government. The next step was for the federal Congress to suggest to the people of Texas that annexation would be possible if they chose to rescind their status as a foreign nation and become a geographical area with a state constitution (that was not a foreign nation) which desired to be annexed by the federal government as a state on equal footing with the other states. In this scenario there would be no need for a treaty or a two-thirds vote by the federal Senate. In fact, this scenario is very similar to the process whereby most of the other states were formed from territories. On 2/28/1845 the federal House and Senate voted to approve a Joint Resolution that told the people of the Republic of Texas, in effect, that if they would enact a new constitution to be a state in the Union and that new state constitution was approved by the federal Congress, then Texas could be annexed to the Union as an equal state. The Texas Congress voted on 6/23/1845 in favor of annexation. A Texas Annexation Convention, called for the purpose (as required by the federal Joint Resolution), accepted the offer in the Joint Resolution on 7/4/1845 by passing an Ordinance of annexation. The Annexation Convention wrote the 1845 Texas Constitution and completed it on 8/28/1845. The preamble states that the 1845 State Constitution was established "in accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States" and the 7/4/1845 Texas Ordinance of annexation was included as the last section of the 1845 State Constitution. The people of Texas voted on 10/13/1845 to approve annexation and to enact the 1845 Texas State Constitution. At this point the Republic of Texas ceased to exist and the State of Texas came into being (subject to the approval of the federal Congress). On 12/16/1845 the federal House, on 12/22/1845 the federal Senate, and on 12/29/1845 the federal President recognized Texas as a state in the Union. A closer examination of the authority delegated to Congress to admit new states to the Union reveals that the ultimate source of confirmation on the Constitution is the Constitution itself. There is nothing written by man of higher authority (and a good case can be made that the Constitution itself is a spiritually inspired document). Fortunately, it is written in plain, simple language. A Section of an Article in the Constitution deals with either a single topic (such as Article IV, Section 1) or a group of related topics (such as Article IV, Section 2). In Section 1 there is only one topic so there is only one paragraph. In Section 2 there are three different related topics: (1) all citizens have equal privileges and immunities; (2) extradition requirements; and (3) slavery or indentured servitude. These are all related because they come under the general category of individual citizens and persons, but they are put in different paragraphs because they are different topics within the same greater category. The reason to have paragraphs is to separate topics or ideas. The very fact that two different topics are in two different paragraphs indicates that they are not directly connected. In order to establish a connection between topics in two different paragraphs there would have to be language in one or both paragraphs to indicate that connection. This is just basic english grammar structure. In the case of the Section in question, Article IV, Section 3, the first paragraph is on the topic of new states and the second paragraph is on the topic of federal territory or other property. These are the three different types of real estate that can be owned or governed by the federal government. Since there is not much practical difference between the way that the federal government deals with territories (Guam, Virgin Islands) and property (District of Columbia, arsenals, navy yards - by cession to the federal government by a state) both territory and other property are put in the same paragraph. Since there is a difference in how the federal government deals with territory/other property and new states, new states are put in a separate paragraph. The first paragraph delegates power to Congress to admit new states into the union with three limitations. The second paragraph delegates power to Congress to dispose of and make rules/regulations concerning territory/property with two limitations. Both paragraphs are self-contained. There is absolutely no language in either paragraph to indicate that there is any connection between the two, other than the fact that both paragraphs come under the general category of real estate. There is, however, language in the second paragraph to indicate that both paragraphs are entirely separate. That is the wording that places both territory and other property in the second paragraph. If the language about territory was supposed to apply to new states, then new states would be in the same paragraph with territory and other property. The Constitution is like a filing cabinet, Articles are like file drawers, Sections are like file folders, and paragraphs are like documents. Say that you have a file folder (section) on real estate and in that folder are two documents (paragraphs). One document is a list of real estate you received from a family estate (new states) and the other document is a list of property you purchased from Mr. Smith (territory/other property). Saying that a new state must first be a federal territory is like telling you that you can not own any of the estate property that had not been purchased by your family from the same Mr. Smith. There is simply no connection between the two. Even if both paragraphs were run together and written as one paragraph, the wording is still so clear that no additional limitation would be added to the Congressional power to admit new states. The Constitution means what it says and it says what it means. The wording about territory and other property does not even begin to hint that there is any requirement for a new state to first be a federal territory. This to me is so crystal clear that I have difficulty in understanding how anyone can have any other interpretation. You don't have to interpret the Constitution; you simply read each word carefully and derive the only meaning. That meaning is just what the Constitution says. Possibly some other portions of the Constitution are more open to interpretation, but I can not see that there is any question whatsoever about Article IV, Section 3. On the question of "Must a state first be a federal territory?", The key of understanding is the word "new" in front of the word "states". A new state is a "state" that did not previously exist in the condition of being a "state". If it did not exist in the condition of being a "state", then it had to exist in some other condition: such as a federal territory, a foreign nation, or in the case of Texas "a geographical area with a U.S. federal system State Constitution that had rescinded their foreign nation government by voting to enact a new State Constitution which replaced the previous Republic Constitution, expecting to be recognized as a state in the Union by the federal Congress and President under the terms of the Congressional legislation known as the U.S. Joint Resolution for the Admission of Texas as one of the states of the Union." There is no, repeat no, constitutional limitation on the previously existing political status of a new state before it becomes a state and there is no limitation on the manner in which a new state can be admitted to the Union, that decision being left up to the discretion of Congress. There are other limitations to this broad power delegated to Congress by the people, but they do not, repeat not, apply to the previous political status of a state as long as it was not part of an existing state, nor do those other limitations apply to the manner in which a new state can be admitted. The U.S. Constitution says: Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. Paragraph 3 of the RT document states: That in February of 1861 the People and their agents of delegation of Texas declared the invalid treaty of 1845, styled as a joint Resolution of March 1, 1845, to be invalid in accordance with the law of nations, and dissolved the union with the United States of America, joined with the lawful states of the Union known as the Confederate States of America, and made war on the remaining members of the UNITED STATES. This is untrue. In February of 1861 the people of Texas and their state government did not declare the Joint Resolution (which was not a treaty) to be invalid. Instead they confirmed the validity of Texas' status as a state in the Union and acted to repeal and annul the 7/4/1845 Texas Ordinance of annexation so as to dissolve the union they recognized as proper and lawful. Paragraph 4 of the RT document states: That the Republic of Texas after the Civil War became a captured nation of war under reconstruction and war powers, and thus remained until by acts of the Sovereign aggregate body of Citizens as described in the preamble to the Texas Constitution of December 29, 1845, in a political subdivision so declared and operational, by acts in convention under the law of nations, the People and Citizens of the Republic of Texas did lawfully dissolve the war powers acts, and did so by reconstituting the common law for remedy under a provisional government and developing a foundational court system and full national character of government for the nation of Texas; All of this legalese apparently means that the Republic of Texas after the Civil War became a captured nation of war under reconstruction and war powers, and thus remained until Rick McLaren and friends recently started generating pseudo-legal paperwork. The fact is that Texas was a captured nation of war from 1865 until 1869 (or 1876 - see following), when the people of Texas chose to rejoin the Union by voting to enact the 1869 Texas State Constitution. It is true that the 1869 vote was taken while Texas was occupied by the Union Army and it could be said that the vote was invalid because it was made under duress. For the purpose of this discussion, that really does not matter, as the people of Texas freely voted in 1876 to enact another (the current) Texas State Constitution. The federal view is that Texas has been a state in the Union continuously since 1845, based on the Articles of Confederation declaring the Union to "be perpetual". My view is that the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the supreme law of the land, that Texas was a state in the Union from 1845 to 1861, and that Texas has been a state in the Union from 1876 until the present. The people of Texas have the right to again secede at any time and, as a matter of fact, there is a plank in the Libertarian Party of Texas platform calling for a binding referendum on Texas secession. If elected to the Texas Legislature, I plan to introduce legislation calling for a binding referendum held automatically at each election of the Governor. I will, however, cast my personal vote in the referendum against secession as long as there is any hope of returning the Union to limited, constitutional government. As if it were not enough for the so-called "General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas" to claim to be the government of Texas and of the people of Texas, this self-styled "government" has also taken it upon themselves to enact "amendments" to the Texas Constitution. Strangely, instead of the 1836 Republic Constitution, they selected the 1845 State Constitution to amend. Someone needs to tell RT that the people of Texas enacted the Texas Constitution in 1876 and only the people of Texas can enact a Texas Constitution - or amend a Texas Constitution - or elect a Texas government; and there is only one "people of Texas." The RT internet web page currently shows the 1836 constitution being amended by amendments to the 1845 constitution, which is confusing. The amendments to the 1845 constitution do not even attempt to change the sections of that constitution which make Texas a state. It is unfortunate that no one until now has publicly questioned RT's claims that Texas was never a state in the Union. "Question authority" is always a good idea, even when the authority being questioned is that of a pseudo-government. The actual Texas government seems to have decided to ignore RT, giving rise to more claims from RT that RT is legitimate because it is being ignored. What is even more unfortunate is that many of the cream-of-the-crop of Texas patriots are accepting RT's claims at face value without taking the time to investigate. Fellow Texan patriots, be careful what you are swallowing. RT has published in the RT Magazine, ". . . anyone, citizens, businesses, governments, or banks, holding money or credit for the STATE OF TEXAS has legal authority to pay those funds directly to the Republic of Texas . . ." and "Citizens have option to send sales tax to Republic." The $1,000 worth of sales tax you send to RT today will almost equal the $1,000+ worth of money from your pocket which you will later be required to pay to the actual government of Texas for sales tax plus penalty and interest. I sincerely understand the intense desire on the part of Texas patriots for a 'quick fix' to get the federal government out of Texas. It is an unhappy fact that RT has no 'quick fix' to offer. The only option that RT can truly offer is the option for Texas to again secede from the Union. This option is always available but I, for one, am not at this time desiring to accept the consequences which would follow such an action. The best answer I can perceive is to elect patriots to the Texas Legislature who will pass a Tenth Amendment Act and tell the feds, in effect, "If you can't show Constitutional authority for your attempted actions - then get the hell out of Texas!" It is for this primary reason that I am a candidate for District 45 of the Texas House of Representatives. The RT General Council has been desiring to be recognized by other governments; well, it has finally been "recognized" by the government of the State of Texas. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated May 20, 1996, sent by Dan Morales, Texas Attorney General, to 55 people believed to be associated with the General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas: . . . My office has further reason to believe that you and those acting with you under the purported auspices of the "Republic of Texas" have been engaged in a common scheme and design to violate and undermine the laws of this state to the detriment, damage and prejudice of the functions of state and local government, the functions of the governments of the state's political subdivisions, and the property rights of the citizens and residents of the state. Accordingly, I hereby direct that you and all persons acting in concert with you, including but not limited to all purported members of the "Republic of Texas", as well as the organization itself, immediately cease and desist engaging in any and all unlawful or illegal activity under the purported authority of the "Republic of Texas", involving, without limitation: (1) representing the "Republic of Texas" to be an "official government," (2) representing members of the "Republic of Texas" to be "official government" personnel, (3) unlawfully and without license using the official Texas state seal (including any close approximation thereof) and gaining benefits from such unauthorized use, (4) improperly filing with district or county clerks, the Texas Secretary of State, or any other official, "Republic of Texas" documents which purport to encumber any property, (5) representing "Republic of Texas" "courts" to be duly commissioned, officially sanctioned courts of law, (6) representing that the "Republic of Texas" possesses any right to authorize the arrest, prosecution, or sanctioning of any persons, (7) taking any action to arrest, prosecute, try or sanction any person under the purported authority of the "Republic of Texas", and (8) violating the judgement. Your failure, and that of the "Republic of Texas", to adhere to the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, may subject you to civil liability to the state and to others, contempt of court by reason of the judgement, and criminal prosecution by this office and/or local prosecutors. My office cannot and will not condone deliberate and willful violations of state and federal law. I am duty-bound to enforce the law of the land and can make no exceptions for those who profess political or philosophical disagreement with our government. You, the "Republic of Texas", and those acting in concert with you, have every right to protest our government, but no right to violate its laws. . . The General Council of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas is now history. It will be another footnote in Texas history books, not unlike the 1869 "State of West Texas." There may yet be those few die-hards who fail to see the handwriting on the wall: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Those who persist in acting as if they represent the (unelected by the people of Texas) so-called RT government may well find themselves crying "martyr, martyr" from behind bars. The RT government will be remembered by those who participated as a noble effort to regain independence for Texas. A noble effort it was, although misguided and without a lawful foundation, but perhaps it will have lit the fire for a true Texas independence movement. What now? What can be done to strive for Texas independence in an effective manner? Well, you are going to have to forget about a 'quick fix' and begin to really work for independence. 1. Find out who are the candidates for State Representative and State Senator in your district. Go in a group to meet with those candidates and find out which ones will pledge (publicly and on paper) to work to enact leglislation calling for a binding referendum on the subject of Texas secession, a referendum to be held soon and then automatically repeated at each election of the Governor. This will enable the people of Texas to decide whether they want their government to be a State or a separate Republic. Your candidate does not have to support secession to support a referendum. A binding referendum on the subject of Texas secession is already a plank in the Libertarian Party of Texas platform. 2. Arm yourselves with votor registration cards and Fully Informed Jury brochures (1-800-TEL-JURY), along with flyers for your chosen House and Senate candidates, and go door-to-door explaining why you feel people should vote for those candidates. Ask if the people are registered to vote. If not, either give them a votor registration card or, better yet, become a Deputy Voter Registrar (simple to do) and register them on the spot. It may help to begin your conversation with, "Hello, I'm a XXX County Deputy Voter Registrar, and . . ." 3. Become knowledgeable about candidates for other offices and find out which candidates will act for Liberty. Find out which candidate for Governor in 1998 will pledge (publicly and on paper) not to veto legislation calling for a binding referendum on Texas secession. Ask those other candidates for flyers you can hand out while going door-to-door. 4. Join or create local organizations to coordinate these activities and to arrange for public meetings to give your candidates an opportunity to speak to the public. Most Liberty candidates will be attempting to campaign on a minimal budget, so dig deep into your pocket and contribute generously. If you are a convincing talker and an inspiring leader you can be more effective in encouraging others to contact the public than you can in contacting the public directly yourself. If you can be a productive fund raiser, you are a jewel boyond price to your candidates. 5. Plan ahead to volunteer on election day to work with your local political party or other organization to serve as a poll watcher to help prevent election fraud. 6. If you simply do not have any Texas House or Senate candidates in your district who will pledge to work to get a binding referendum, you can campaign for Liberty candidates for other offices. You can also campaign in other districts for Liberty House and Senate candidates and start now working for the next election. Why not consider running yourself as the Libertarian Party candidate for State Representative of your district in 1998 if the other parties refuse to nominate Liberty candidates? Under state law, you must file your papers by early January 1998. And, if you are not willing to work for Liberty, but just want to talk -- then talk about how you deserve the government you get. 11. TEXAS INDEPENDENCE Because of federal violation of the rights of Texans, the subjection of Texans to rules foreign to their condition and their interests, and the unquestioned right of the people of Texas to self-determination, we call for the legislature of Texas to place the issue of the independence of the Republic of Texas before the people in the form of a binding referendum. -- 1994 State Platform of the Libertarian Party of Texas ================================================================== * Patriot Information Mailing List * http://constitution.org/piml/piml.htm * A service to help inform those who have an active interest in * returning our federal and state governments to limited, * constitutional government * Send messages for consideration and possible posting to * butterb@sagenet.net (Bill Utterback). * To subscribe or unsubscribe, send message with subject line * "subscribe patriot" or "unsubscribe patriot" * Forwarded messages sent on this mailing list are NOT verified. * See World's Smallest Political Quiz: www.self-gov.org/quiz.html * Libertarian is to LIBERTY as librarian is to library (DePena) * PIML grants permission to copy and repost this message * in its entirety with headers and trailers left intact.