If you love liberty, Texas and the Constitution, I am not just another choice for Texas governor. I am your only choice.
To resist an increasingly tyrannical and broken federal government, we must chart a new course away from Washington and outside the corrupt two-party system — corrupted by special interests. Greg Abbott is part of the cronyism that is the problem and is not part of the solution. And Wendy Davis is no better. She serves the toll road special interests.
The time will soon come when Washington is not just broken but totally collapsed. When that day arrives, Texas will be forced to do without things we rely on from the federal government — like over one-third of our state budget. Texas will have no choice but to stand on its own two feet, as we should have done all along. Only I have the vision of what is coming, a plan for how to defeat this tyranny and the guts to see it through.
My plan for Texas independence (not secession) will prepare Texas for hard times ahead.
Read the full op/ed here.
I’m watching Fast and Furious 6 on HBO and drinking whiskey, so don’t look for anything far more involved that that 🙂
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld.[1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or “compact”) among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government’s power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government’s constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to “interpose” itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
I don’t understand why running twice leads to rampant speculation about perpetual candidacy. I wouldn’t start that til about the fourth race at a minimum.
Both are good. I’ll save the argument about the constitutionality of nullification for someone else or for when I have more time.
I wonder if she’ll end up like the lady in Vermont. C. Ericson,I believe, runs every cycle in Governor and Senator(?) races on the Marijuana Party. Still hasn’t broken through on any of the races. I think she should try maybe a state rep. race, or Mayor of Burlington. If she lives there of course.
pf: To the extent we help push it incrementally away from being fringe we do a great thing. [Nullification] is an issue that sorely needs more attention.
me: Methinks Glass is talking about the states being able to nullify federal laws, not so much “jury nullification.”
I s’pose a move could be made to amend the Constitution. Currently, Article III says this, for ex.:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court…to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;”
Article VI says this:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
These COULD be changed in the name of allowing “nullification.”
Changes could do an even better job of creating a “more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…,” granted, but it seems even tougher than getting Ls elected, or even getting them heard and taken seriously.
Whether there’s a potential market for changing the Constitution, I can’t say I see it at the moment. Walking people through the thicket of constitutional theory seems to me about as difficult as it gets.
Anything’s possible, though!
Steve, Sarvis is not a special candidate. He just happened to fall in between a battle between Ed Crane and Ken Cuccinelli. So Sarvis benefitted with hundreds of thousands in quality ads that the Purple PAC paid for.
Let’s not kid ourselves, that is really the only reason he polled so high.
Please qualify that. Were her percentages significantly worse than past TX LP candidates for Governor? Or do you mean in terms of message or news coverage or what?
Several other candidates ran for the nomination and made their case to a well attended and lively convention, which I attended. She beat all of them. I think I would have voted for Robert Bell if I was a delegate, but she won and is now the candidate. What good does it do for non-Texans who were not there to second guess the delegates who made that decision when it is a done deal?
A few do. I would venture most do not. Having built some modicum of a list of supporters and name recognition, some familiarity with certain campaign events and news outlets etc through having run before, a second run can build on all that.
Well, they don’t have anyone like that who sought the nomination. And Sarvis has like Glass been criticized by LP purists for deviations from LP orthodoxy on some issues, albeit not the same ones.
And, he is alo a “rerun” this year in VA, albeit for a different office.
I wasn’t trying to rain on what happened in Texas. I was trying to point out that with so many candidates, the top of the ticket matters because it is the top spot. Glass didn’t show well the last time she ran, so getting a new face and fresh ideas would’ve attempted to get some new blood to lead the way for the rest of the candidates.
It is second hand, but Glass and her husband buy their way into many things. It does cause a small fracture in the state party. Not a major one, but again, with so many candidates running having a grand slam top ticket would be huge for them right now. She is a rerun. The voters already know her and what she stands for. In marketing, buzz is about something new.
I have never said anything about Texas and their conventions. People vote and that is that. But this was a big year for Texas as I have been told.
In my opinion, they needed a “Sarvis” type of candidate to get the momentum going and to keep it going. It isn’t a litmus test time for Texas, but that convention was a launch pad.
They just launched a rerun. That is what I meant.
I didn’t mean to imply anything about Texas LP.
To the extent we help push it incrementally away from being fringe we do a great thing. It is an issue that sorely needs more attention.
JP, yes, jury nullification has been around for a long time as a “topic.’ Whether it’s a topic that’s ready for prime time in a major state like TX…I doubt. Of course, I’ve been wrong before, but in this case, I suspect that a fringe issue will remain so, at least in this cycle in TX.
Thanks for your concern, though….
Robert, it’s a little concerning to me that you’re not up on some of these topics. Jury rights and nullification are topics the liberty-minded folks in Los Angeles talk about all the time, yet you seem to think they’re “fringey”. I don’t know what part of the country you’re in, but you might see if there’s a Liberty on the Rocks group in your communty. It’s a fairly new group that I heard about at Libertopia. There’s a Los Angeles and Orange County group at least here. It’s kind of what the name implies: liberty-oriented people meeting at a nightclub to visit with each other and get to know ach other. We’ve met many new friends there, and I’m happy to educate them about the Libertarian Party.
JP, yes, it “just may be.” Still, I’ve seen no evidence that it’s ACTUALLY an “option.” On single issues, some may saber rattle that a state might choose to “nullify” federal laws, and some might even follow through on the matter in some specific cases, like marijuana legalization or same-gender marriage (to some extent).
That’s different from what Glass seems to say…that “nullification” is her top issue.
We’ll get a better sense of it whether the matter has real traction in November. It has an abstract feel to me, which is generally not how politics is played, though….
In other Texas LP News:
”
We have 132 Candidates on the ballot!
LPTexas is excited to announce that the Secretary of State has certified our delegate nominations and there will be 132 candidates representing the Libertarian Party on ballots across Texas in November!
Many thanks, again, to all who have participated in the convention cycle, in candidate recruitment and/or are running as candidates yourselves. You did this. This is your victory! To see the full and final list of candidates (in tab and list view) please visit http://www.lptexas.org/candidates .”
There are some grounds to criticize Kathie Glass on, but this is not one of them. She ran one other time that I know of. How is that a “perpetual candidate”? Do you seriously mean that cadidates should only be able to run once and that’s it?
I would expect that nullification is a huge topic in Texas, as it is for many of us here in California. It just may be the best option available for a state like Texas, although CA isn’t ready for it yet.
I see Glass states her big issue as being “nullification.” If I heard that right, odds are VERY high that she will remain in the low single digits in the general election.
The concept is pretty obscure and fringy. Too bad, as she has a pretty good resume and presents herself reasonably well, from what I could see.
Steve, if Kathie won the state convention, she’s clearly the better candidate. If you can’t win a state LP nomination, you should hang up your campaign hat.
“Texas needs some new blood at the top of the ticket.”
Jeff Daiell? David Hutzelman?
At my regional meeting last night, I had invited area candidates to speak to us because none of the positions have a Libertarian on the ballot. Three Republicans, including a Republican Liberty Caucus member, an American Whig listed as Americans Elect, and a Democrat showed up. Earlier in the day, I looked for info on all the people so I could recognize them and have a little to say to introduce them. One of the Republicans and the Democrat had exactly nothing about their candidacy. The Democrat runs every election cycle, yet doesn’t have a website. It was hard to take them seriously.
In my opinion, perpetual candidates eventually take on the appearance of nutball or annoying. I think Texas should’ve done a better job at its convention. I admire courage and those in motion, but Texas needs some new blood at the top of the ticket.