Texas Nationalist Movement Challenges Democrats To A Debate

From Texas Nationalist Movement:

TNM President Challenges Texas Democrat Legislators To Debate!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------











Texas Nationalist President, Daniel Miller, challenges Democrat state legislators to debate. The first challenge, delivered March 25, 2010, went unanswered. Miller, undaunted, challenges yet again.







September 7, 2010







The Honorable Garnet F. Coleman



The Honorable Eliot Shapleigh



The Honorable Trey Martinez Fischer



The Honorable Rodney Ellis



The Honorable Jessica Farrar



The Honorable Leticia Van De Putte



The Honorable Sylvester Turner







P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768







VIA FACSIMILE







Re: Follow Up To My Debate Challenge Regarding Your Letter To The Texas Attorney General Regarding Litigation Against the Federal Government Challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590 signed into law March 23, 2010) and related legislation







Dear State Senators and State Representatives:







I am sending this letter along with a copy of my initial correspondence as well as an op-ed piece that has been sent to the major news outlets in Texas as well as in your respective home districts.







While the Attorney General and the Governor might be reticent to call you out for your letter regarding the AG’s joining in the lawsuit against the Federal government over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I am not.







By signing that letter you are all guilty of the worst form of hypocrisy. It stands as a monument to ignorance, surpassed only by Hank Johnson’s concern that Guam could “tip over and capsize”. In my response I gave you all an opportunity to save face by either retracting your statements or proving me wrong in front of the people through a public debate. You have chosen to remain silent on my challenge. However, I, and the people of Texas are not in a mood to be brushed aside by politicians sitting in judgment from their tarnished ivory tower.











My parents taught me long ago that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” As your party, the White campaign and several of the news outlets in Texas have decided to set a date for a debate in the hopes that Perry will show up to defend his positions on policy issues, we are going to do the same for you. We will soon set a date, time and place for a debate on the fundamental issues addressed in my response. You can have input in this process or you can continue to remain silent. We will continue on without you and your silence will stand as your response to the issues under debate.







I have offered to debate all seven (7) of you single-handedly and give you an opportunity to prove that I am wrong in front of Texas. I encourage you to take this opportunity. I will be relentless on the issues of Texas independence and this is your only shot to shut me up – if you can.







I look forward to your response to this letter and my challenge.







Sincerely,







Daniel Miller

President



Texas Nationalist Movement







cc: Governor Rick Perry



Attorney General Greg Abbott











THE FOLLOWING IS THE FIRST CHALLENGE TO DEBATE:







March 25, 2010







The Honorable Garnet F. Coleman



The Honorable Eliot Shapleigh



The Honorable Trey Martinez Fischer



The Honorable Rodney Ellis



The Honorable Jessica Farrar



The Honorable Leticia Van De Putte



The Honorable Sylvester Turner







P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768







Re: Your Letter To The Texas Attorney General Regarding Litigation Against the Federal Government Challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590 signed into law March 23, 2010) and related legislation







Dear State Senators and State Representatives:







I am in receipt of your letter to Attorney General Greg Abbott dated March 23, 2010, which was obtained from one of several media outlets here in Texas. While the letter was not addressed to me nor asked for any response from me, your decision to make it public leaves it open for response by any Texan. That would include me.







While you are disappointed by the Attorney General's decision to file suit against the Federal Government, I am disappointed by your hypocrisy and your ignorance of the history of Texas, the United States and the Constitution.







The Attorney General has taken the correct course in this matter and the people of Texas are behind his efforts to challenge the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is the duty of every elected official and citizen to act when they feel that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are being trampled by anyone, especially the Federal Government. I am sure that many of you felt this same way when the Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined with the Bush administration to pass the Patriot Act. If you didn't then you should be ashamed.







While it seems fairly fashionable to quote Article VI of the United States Constitution on the part of Federal Government apologists, I would draw your attention to a few other provisions that you seem to have overlooked. Article V states:



"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."







This section establishes the procedure for amending the Constitution which was done with the passage of the first ten (10) amendments commonly referred to as the "Bill of Rights".







It is a well known precept of Constitutional law that the amendments to the Constitution supersede any sections of the original document. Hence the Tenth amendment is in a superior position to anything that you have quoted. It states:







"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."



With this in mind, it is quite reasonable that the Attorney General has seen fit to issue this challenge in court and quite unreasonable that you have decided to chastise him for such. As your objections cannot possibly be based in any decent interpretation of the Constitution, I can only hope that it is merely a matter of oversight or ignorance. Although, since your letter was communicated to the media, I sense some political grandstanding. Given your accusation of such against the Attorney General this would classify you as hypocrites.







In your letter you cite the Interstate Commerce Clause as the Constitutional justification for the Federal Government's authority to pass this piece of legislation. While it is true that previous courts have sided with the Federal Government's overreaching authority and it's disregard for the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been known to make very poor decisions in the past which have been reversed by future courts.







In case you have forgotten, the decision by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson established segregation as a Constitutionally protected activity. A future court corrected this position in Brown v. Board of Education and effectively ended the morally reprehensible institution. However, if your position is to be believed, existing Supreme Court rulings should stand without challenge. I find this position morally reprehensible and hypocritical.







You also have taken the position that the Federal Government's mandates upon individuals are to be accepted wholesale without question and without reservation. This position is not one held by the Founders or previous generations of statesman. I encourage you to examine the Hartford Convention where excessive meddling in the economy and the institution of a military draft nearly drove the northern states to secede from the Union.







Your letter to the Attorney General also attacked the principles of nullification and secession. The very nature of the Union is at the heart of these two legal precepts (not theories). Again, I find it hypocritical that you would decry the principle of nullification which seeks to preserve the Union when the Federal Government exceeds its authority. It can be traced back to the Founders themselves where Jefferson and Madison invoked the principle in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. It also made an appearance in the aforementioned Hartford Convention. Nullification was also used by Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine and Kansas in the 1850's to combat the evil Fugitive Slave Act.







Further, secession was a well-understood principle in America and I, as well as others, find it extraordinarily hypocritical when allegedly well-educated members of our society cannot understand how fundamental it is to our history. I doubt very seriously that you or any of your colleagues paid taxes to the Queen of England or to Mexico City this year. If you didn't, then thank secession.







As for your assertion that Appomattox put an end to these principles, I quote the head of your political party, Barack Obama when he said, "I strive for a world where might doesn't make right, but where right makes might."







And I would ask you to never complain about a waste of taxpayer again after the "chubbing" exhibition that you and your colleagues performed during the last session of the legislature. You lack the moral authority on the issue of taxpayer money and it would only serve to waste your breath and our time.







Aside from all of the fallacious arguments made in your letter, the real reason for your missive is contained in your vociferous defense of the bill itself. While your propaganda about "small business tax credits" and "tax subsidies to middle income families" may play well in Massachusetts, Connecticut or the District of Columbia, the people of Texas aren't buying it. Here in Texas we know Federal overstretch when we see it and this is it. We also know that the United States is unsustainable at its current debt burden and this bill is a violation of the rights of the people and the state of Texas. These are points which seem to be buried by the rhetoric that you seem so ready to repeat.







In conclusion, the people of Texas are not going to stand for this and are ready to take back our independence and freedom. Whether this is accomplished by the courts or by the people of Texas at the ballot box, we will not be denied. Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, which you swore an oath to, states:







" All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."



We will exercise that right guaranteed by our Constitution including lawsuits, nullification or secession. I challenge you to look at your position on this and many other issues and determine if you represent the people of Texas or someone else.







If, after the receipt of this letter, you find that your facts and reasoning are superior to mine, then I challenge you to "put your money where your mouth is" and accept this as a formal challenge to publicly debate any one or all of you on these issues. And if you believe that you can accomplish this easily and "put me in my place", I would encourage you to bring a sack lunch as it may not be nearly the "cake walk" that you think.







I look forward to your response to this letter and my challenge.







Sincerely,







Daniel Miller

President



Texas Nationalist Movement







cc: Governor Rick Perry



Attorney General Greg Abbott