Arguments FOR enforcement of the IX and X Amendment of the Constitution for the United States commonly referred to as “nullification”, “interposition”, and “republican” government.

American governments are instituted among Men for one purpose only and that is to protect three inherent Rights endowed to Men by their Creator; these being life, liberty, and individual property.  All government actions operating outside of these principles are contrary to and violate the republican form of government, not to mention the elephant in the room; excessive legislation creates bigger government.  

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1:

All legislative powers herein granted…”

The first five (5) words of the U.S. Constitution state specifically that all powers of the federal government are “granted”.  Granted by whom?  Granted by the People through the states, therefore the power to grant privileges and rescind privileges remains inherently in the People and the states in perpetuity, regardless of contrary actions taken on the part of and declared to be law by any government.   All governments are created and maintained for the benefit and protection of the Peoples’ inherent rights that originate through their Creator (life, liberty, and property). This is the bedrock of American government.  Hence the rights of the states created by the People stand above all other considerations; foreign and domestic. Just as the first five words of the U.S. Constitution make it clear that the People granted all legislative powers, the right to local and self-government is also specifically listed in Article I, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution as testament of relevant importance:

 Texas Constitution: Article I

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States. [unaltered since 1876]

 The state of Texas has always reserved the right of self-government and is only subject to those powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States [granting of powers and duties to the federal government]. Those powers are listed in Articles I-III in the U.S. Constitution. 

 Article VI states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land; … anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 Article VI is interpreted to mean that any laws that violate the U.S. Constitution are null and void.


Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Any mandated actions included in the voluminous Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA aka Obamacare) that violate the rights of the People and protected in the U.S. Bill of Rights or the Texas Bill of Rights is null and void, and as such Texas reserves the peaceful right to exercise the IX and X Amendments per the union contract between Texas and the United States of America in 1845.  Texas has not violated that contract but rather the Federal Government has continuously violated the contract without previous enforceable objection by the government of Texas.  Previous neglect does not constitute reason for continued dereliction of duties on the part of state governments.

 WHO will stand on principle against a government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant and is unfit to be the ruler of a Free People?  Of the 2000+ pages listed in PPACA, the numerous violations of the Peoples’ inherent Rights are unknown presently and cannot possibly be listed completely. Here are just a few protected Rights mentioned in the Texas Constitution:

Article I

 Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. [unaltered since 1876]


Sec. 18. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt. [unaltered since 1876]



To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void. [unaltered since 1876]


In essence, the government (state and federal) is barred from violating the Peoples’ Bill of Rights, to include Amendments I through X in the U.S. Constitution, and Section I in the Texas Constitution.  Any legislative or judicial government force defined as outside of these Rights are contrary to their establishment by the People.


Further, it is understood that no constitution to date is perfect due to man’s liability to err. It is also understood that man experiences great difficulty policing his own actions when delegated absolute power (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely).  Such absolute power has been assumed by the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, of which the most recent evidence can be found in Chief Justice John Roberts’ tie breaking decision on PPACA; ruling that congress could tax a non-existent human activity. Justice Roberts stated “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax”.  This egregious action gives PPACA the new name of “Roberts Care”, aka “Obama Care”.


The Supreme Court has demonstrated the inability to police itself without prejudice by these facts:

1.) The President nominates all Supreme Court Justices. President Obama nominated 2 of the current 9 Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor & Kagan who both voted favorably on the constitutionality of PPACA).  As such, Pres. Obama made it clear in his campaign for President that national healthcare was his priority, which implies that two of the nine justices could have been prejudiced in their PPACA decisions.

2.) The U.S. Senate confirms the President’s nominations for Supreme Court Justices.  The 111th U.S. Senate who voted on December 24, 2009 (60–39) to create the legislation known as PPACA also holds “confirmation of appointment” authority over the Supreme Court Justices.  Out of the one-hundred senators sitting in the 111th Congress, only ten freshmen senators had not participated in the confirmation hearings for any Supreme Court Justices.  Again, the question begs whether prejudice was exercised.

3.) The U.S. Senate holds the power to impeach Supreme Court Justices.  If it could be argued that a majority of the 100 Senators voting PPACA out of their chamber on Dec. 24, 2009 (60–39) could use their impeachment power to remove any dissenting Justice, would this be a prejudiced act on the part of the Senate?

4.) Congress sets the pay scale and other financial benefits to the Supreme Court Justices.  Is there a possible prejudicial action on the part of either party?


The 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of the PPACA’s constitutionality were:


Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen Breyer

Sonia Sotomayor

Elena Kagan

John Roberts


Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed under President Obama.


Yes, there is a strong valid argument for Texas to enforce the IX and X Amendments!  How much worse do things have to get before a Free People are motivated to act on their behalf? 


President Kennedy said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”


The IX and X Amendments are the peaceful solution to a tyrannical government.  If not this action, then secession is surely the next option.  If secession is not a viable option, then the most realistic realization would be to declare the government what it is.  The Federal Government is dissolved by its’ own actions in breaching the agreement between it and the several independent and sovereign states, not to mention the violation of the trust and confidence of the American People.  If the Texas 83rd Legislature proves inept in restoring the Rights of the People, then it too is dissolved by its own actions of neglect of their Oath of Office.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *