Tag Archive: states


The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.

Here is the text, in whole:
“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.”

So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”

Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.

Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.

This reads: “nor prohibited by it [“it” means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”

The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:

If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)

Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)

The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.

Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.

Any questions?

There are all manner of stories about states seceding from the union, or at least wanting to do so. Texas is one of them, and the list of names on the Texan petition has exceeded 80,000 in number. That’s A LOT of upset people.


There aren’t any provisions in the Constitution to allow for secession, but there are not provisions for many of the rights that the people and states count as their own, that are not detailed in the Constitution. The link is to the 9th Amendment.


Some would say the Civil War decided this [I used to be one], but, in reality, it decided that states cannot be allowed to rebel because the federal government is protecting the life and liberty of its citizens from the state.  If you want specifics on what was decided by this war from a brilliant mind, learn at the knee of Mises. I also just read that Justice Scalia said, “No way!,” but he also said the right to bear arms can be limited, so do with that info what you will.


Also, Texas is a bit different because we were a republic, a separate country, when we joined the union. Some dispute that we joined voluntarily, but I’ll leave that for another post.


For now, let’s take this looking at this as if each state COULD declare that they wished to secede and then do so.  The real question then is: WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT?


As I saw it, several things could happen, and my original view was that nothing good would follow, simply by looking at military logistics.

IF the secession were successful, we would either 1. Be left to the Mexican warlords in full force, or, option 2, we would get retaken by the US govt and made into federal land and stripped of our Texas rights. For option 1, we would stand a chance, especially if all military members were called back to the country (again) of Texas. LOTS of military are from Texas and would have to be released from the US Military.

While pondering this, my brother, Mike Hernandez, who suggested this topic as a post, and I had a chat about it. Here are some of his points in response to my worries.

“I think we would be just fine. We have the ports, industry, oil, natural gas, transportation,uranium, tourists, computer industry, etc. The cartels I wouldn’t worry about them too much. I also think Texas would open the door for other states to follow our lead. I have heard noise about other states also wanting to secede. [Well, we have 27 working on it, so he’s right on this so far!] Do you really think Obama would want the world media to show Americans shooting Americans in open warfare? The U.S. has supported lots of other republics in seceding worldwide ( Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Russia republics come to mind). How could they deny Texas? It also kinda scares me. Kinda like suddenly becoming an orphan. Lol.”

About the media, I replied, “Our media would not report a thing. Just like now when everything is “just fine” along the border.” And, I stand by that statement.


I also would not put it past the US to reclaim us with force, nor the military members (enough of them) who don’t understand they don’t have to follow unlawful orders to just do whatever they are told to do, believing it absolves them of guilt. This is human nature.


Also, remember that just about every “democracy” we have helped to establish we have left to be taken over by tyrants in short order. And it’s different to egg on another country to rebel. At home? Different feelings.


To my ramblings, Mike thoughtfully responded.

Good points, I still think we would be okay as long as it was done slowly and with care so as not to come across as “rebels” going up against the U.S. O[bama] and most of the US don’t like Texas anyway. Hell they might help us pack.

While I believe that many in this beloved country of mine would love to help us pack up and ship out, so to speak, I believe that Obama (shoot, almost all politicians) would not let our resources go away that easily. We pay taxes like mad because so many people are flooding here year after year. And, taxes? Now, taxes from Texas ALL politicians like.


As to the question of whether or not we SHOULD secede…I’m not as inclined to brush off the idea so quickly anymore, but I’m also not ready to take up arms. I guess I find it interesting that so many are testing the waters with petitions and paperwork. Getting a feel for how it would go. I’ll not dismiss the idea outright, but I’d rather not have to think about it seriously. [Side note: I am not in the mood for a visit from the IRS right now, so putting my name on a public petition would not be on my “to do” list, at this point.]


Maybe if everyone gets more people to read my blog, and buy my book, people will understand the true nature of liberty – from a book with adorable illustration and straightforward explanations of history, and a blog with simple truths that seem to have been lost. If there were liberty, the union would be just a lovely place to live.

Let’s talk numbers this time. First, a brief discussion about the houses of Congress. They stink.


Haha. That’s another post altogether. This time, we’ll be discussing how their numbers are chosen. In the end, it will tie into the electoral college, I promise.


The House of Representatives is composed of representatives based on the number of people living in a state. So, the large states have more representation in this house.


To balance this, they created a bicameral (meaning two houses) legislature (meaning the law making body of the government), with, in addition to the House of Representatives, the Senate that has two representatives for each state, no matter the size.


In reality, the big states were happy to not have a Senate. They were fine and dandy with railroading the small states. But, logic prevailed, and the bicameral won the day, thank goodness.


There is also the concept of length of terms. The House is supposed to have its proverbial finger on the pulse of the nation. Thus, every two years, the passions of the nation are made known by the election of those in the House. Or, ya know, it shows us how many people actually care enough to vote, especially when it’s not a presidential election year. (Hint: our framers would have a FIT if they knew how few people voted – and how fewer actually voted with accurate knowledge of the issues).


For the Senate, it was supposed to be made up of more thoughtful and longer-serving types of representatives. They are only up for election once every 6 years, and so have a couple of election cycles to not have to worry about campaigning. This is supposed to allow them to focus on the legality of the legislation they are passing. (Okay, take a minute to stop laughing…I know only a handful of them have worried about that in the past 60-100 years…)


They started out being picked by the state legislatures, so they were SUPPOSED to focus on the needs of the entire state. This changed with the 17th amendment and the Senate has become more prone to the whims of the electorate since, because they are now chosen by the one vote per citizen system. You’ll see later why this is so messed up. Hang in there!!


One-third of the representatives in the Senate are chosen every two years, so there is never a time when EVERYONE is a newbie. This sounds like a great idea…until no one knows how to function properly. Imagine there is an impeachment trial going on, and then everyone gets voted out. How are the new guys supposed to know what’s going on, who knew what and when…it would be a huge problem, to say the least.


Next up: other options for voting in the Pres and VP, and how this blog ties in with the electoral college. It’s going to be riveting! 😉

%d bloggers like this: