Writing the New Texas Constitution: Avoiding Inherent Flaws

Email Print

I hear a lot
these days about the constitutionality of secession. In this article,
I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that
the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely
irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with
the constitutionality of secession.

A constitution,
or any document organizing a government, must have authority and
validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity
and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution
is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution
and then craft a new Texas constitution with authority and validity.

I believe that
one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it
does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those
persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable.
Absent a restraining legal document, they do exactly what they wish
and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution
has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the

We, the people
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the united States of America.

So what exactly
is this Constitution?

I think it
could only be called a "loose agreement" between certain
people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a
treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight
of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts
have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified
by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn't
turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The old constitution's
sentiment seeks to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity,
meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot
by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts
cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They
can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign
and receive the contract.

The old constitution
is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or
more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone.
A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not
valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered
to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any
party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus
invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone
or anyone's legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone
or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead,
has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties.
So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are
also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are
free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract.
Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there can be
consequences, but they can still leave.

Lincoln was
completely right in this matter. His position was that, once in
the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was
an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have
been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land.
But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln
was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate
States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also
right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality
was irrelevant.

Even though
the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their
posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further,
it never showed any intention toward future generations other than
to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings
of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations
to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery
upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it
from birth, like it or not.

The Constitution
is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation
would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and
by-laws as old members die off. New members must sign on because
without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could
not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that
the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation's organizational

So we can see
that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never
did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate
under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate

Those who support
the Constitution fall into three classes:

1. Parasites
who see the government as an instrument they can use to further
their own desires or increase their own wealth.

2. Credulous
Credulity is defined as willingness to believe, especially
on slight or uncertain evidence. Dupes believe that they are "free
men" living in a "democracy" in the greatest country
on earth. Dupes vote for the very agents who enslave, rob and murder
them and their fellow citizens.

3. Bystanders
who are aware of the evils of the government but are unwilling to
place their own interests at risk to work at making a change.

But we voted
and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly
elected officials, aren't they?

Are our elected
representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind
each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order
for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name
to a document that gives the representative the power to act in
your behalf. This document is commonly known as a "power of
attorney." You must also deliver the document to the agent.

Did you ever
sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could
make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person
to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to
any governmental body? I know that I have not done so.

And the secret
ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as
your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an
agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that
those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully,
and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers
and frauds.

Then upon what
authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the
authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men's property and kill
other men who resist their machinations?

You could say
that voters select their representatives by ballot, and so bestow
authority upon them. But in matters of law and reason, this is not
true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and
three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth
friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or
my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented
himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce
any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority,
I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts
even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom,
a judge would ask to see your representative's written authority
to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written

So voting is
neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should
never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between
parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person
to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to
accept responsibility for the agent's acts. That's called "liability,"
and that's what happens out here in "the real world."
But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that "for
any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or
Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place."
So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and
neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?


And let's return
to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal
authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would
possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and
at least one other person's signature. But that document does not
exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent
that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise in making
the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal
Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin.
There is no enforceable law to restrain it from any act. It was
only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained
them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and
ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced
that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new
constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If
the framers of the new constitution just write one like the old
one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here's a suggestion
on how to write a new Texas Constitution.

Form the new
Texas as a Non-Profit Corporation…Texas, Inc. The Constitution
can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option
to subscribe to Texas, Inc. and become a citizen. That person would
have to be presented with a copy of the Constitution. Each person
would have the choice to accept the Constitution in writing. Once
accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the
corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without
signed consent. Each citizen would be issued one share of common
stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the constitution
could not be Texas citizens. Minors could not be Texas citizens
until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen
years of age.

Texas Inc.
might instead choose a for-profit corporation as its charter entity.
In that situation, the general public might be issued one share
of common stock when they sign their Constitution. The shareholder/citizens
could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would
provide the new nation with capital. Shareholders holding preferred
stock might receive dividends if Texas Inc. makes a profit.

As either corporate
structure would be closely-held private corporations, the charter
could specify that the stock could not be sold to non-citizens.
Only Texas citizens would be eligible to be investors.

The founders
of Texas, Inc. would have the right to present the offer of citizenship
to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world
for the best and brightest talent! It would be a component of immigration

Voting could
be done by proxies, and the citizen could designate his elected
representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself
on any issue.

Think this
is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been
running this way for over a hundred years. GM (pre-nationalization),
Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work
this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like
Texas Inc. would have.

are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in
this article. But this article was not written to form a new government.
It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they
directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson's
shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when
a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people
under absolute despotism, it is the people's right and duty to throw
off such government and provide new guards for their future security.
Texas Incorporated could be that new guard that secures the future
of a New Texas nation.

Texas, Incorporated.
An idea whose time is come.

Thanks and
honor go to Michael S. Rozeff, retired Professor of Finance, for
his wise counsel and comment. You can read his
brilliance at LewRockwell.com

For a wider
analysis of this constitutional issue, read No
, by Lysander Spooner, 1870.

24, 2009

D. Longcore [send him
] is president of Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company.
He is married to “his Redhead” Julie, has three wonderful children
and three even more wonderful grandchildren. Visit his secessionist
website at: www.DumpDC.com.

Email Print