Connor Daigle

Top Contributor
Bill Of Rights Guru
+4
More actions

Forum Posts

Connor Daigle
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Oct 02, 2022
In Texas Constitutionalists
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday, September 28th, denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's motion for rehearing in a case where the court voted to strip the power of the Attorney General to prosecute voter fraud back in December, citing a separation of powers violation. The case came after Jefferson County Sheriff Zena Stephens was accused of campaign finance violations. Stephens allegedly accepted cash contributions that were more than $100, among other things, in violation of the Texas Election Code. Attorney General Ken Paxton stepped in after local prosecutors turned down the case. Stephens appealed the indictment, arguing the Attorney General lacked the constitutional authority to prosecute criminal cases. Under the Texas Constitution, criminal prosecution is specifically assigned to local district and county attorneys. However, Attorney General Paxton argued that the following provision, "perform such other duties as may be required by law" granted him the authority. The court, in a 8-1 vote, in December disagreed stating “The Texas Constitution contains [an] explicit separation of powers provision unlike the federal Constitution...We have previously held that this textual difference between the United States and Texas constitutions suggests that Texas would ‘more aggressively enforce separation of powers between its governmental branches than would the federal government." Paxton said the ruling could be devastating for future elections in Texas because it gives Soros-funded district attorneys sole power to decide whether election fraud has occurred in Texas. On Wednesday, in their rejection to a rehearing, Judge Scott Walker concurred with the court's decision, stating that revisiting the case could be a "double-edged sword." “My concern is the negative impact such a ruling could have on the fairness of elections in the future. It is possible that, in the not-too-distant future, a new politician could be elected as the Attorney General of Texas," wrote Walker. The rejection vote was 7-2, with Judge Michelle Slaughter joining Judge Kevin Yeary in the minority. Slaughter had previously voted with the majority to strip the attorney general of election fraud enforcement powers in December. Paxton criticized the decision and said the state legislature should step in to right the wrong. My thoughts: Although the Texas Constitution specifically grants local district and county attorneys the power to prosecute criminal cases, it also empowers the Legislature to grant the attorney general additional powers not expressly granted to him by the Texas Constitution. This decision is dangerous and incentivises fraud because voter fraud will not be fought by George Soros' DAs.
Texas Elections Are Now More At Risk Thanks To The Texas State Court Of Criminal Appeals content media
1
0
34
Connor Daigle
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Oct 02, 2022
In Texas Constitutionalists
Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) is running for re-election and has been touring the state of Texas to prepare for the November elections. At one of his recent events, he was asked about a TEXIT referendum, which is supported by and called for in the RPT platform in planks 33 and 225. When asked, “Is the legislature going to let us have a vote on Texas secession?” his answer was: “That’s not gonna happen, I don’t think, for a couple of reasons. I don’t know what the future of America is… but so many people like yourself have served and died for this country, I want to preserve our nation. I just want to win it back.” He followed that statement with: “Now I will tell you that when I found out California had a secession movement as well, I chipped in 10 bucks.” He wants California to have a choice, but not Texas. Now of course that’s because there is political feud between Texas Republicans and California Democrats. But TEXIT isn’t the only thing Patrick doesn’t want the voters of Texas to have a choice on. In August of this year, he joined fellow Republicans in a suit to try and kick off 23 Libertarian candidates from the November ballot, including his Libertarian opponent Shanna Steele. Later that month, the Supreme Court of Texas rejected the case. In the Case Summary, the Supreme Court made it clear that protecting the choice of voters is critical, "Never is adherence to this general rule more important than when candidates seek to constrain the choices available to voters in an election. Access to the ballot lies at the heart of a constitutional republic. For that reason, the Court strictly construes statutory provisions against a finding of a candidate's ineligibility. Actions like this are a clear violation of Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2: INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 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. According to a SurveyUSA poll released in July of this year, 66% of likely Texas voters want Texas to leave the union and "become an independent country." Lt. Governor Dan Patrick needs to let the People of Texas decide whether or not Texas leaves the union. Lets Talk About TEXIT, Vote Could Happen As Soon As Next Year
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Doesn’t Like Texans Having A Choice, Other Than Him Of Course content media
1
0
137
Connor Daigle
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Sep 28, 2022
In Texas Constitutionalists
TEXIT is the term used to refer to Texas exiting the union and becoming an independent, self-governing nation. (Texas Independence Flag sold by the Texas Nationalist Movement) It's no secret that Texans have been discussing the issue of secession and Texas withdrawing from the union and becoming an independent nation for years, FAQ's about TEXIT can be found here. The most frequently asked question about TEXIT is, of course, its legality. First, lets visit the supreme law of the union, the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S Constitution lists the specific powers and actions denied to the states, you will not find secession being one of them. Because there is no prohibition on the states leaving the union, the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the issue of secession: 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. Second, lets visit the supreme law of the state of Texas, the Texas Constitution. Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution says: 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. So yes, Texas leaving the union is completely legal and no supreme court case from the past or in the future can change that. During Texas' last legislative session, Texas State Representative Kyle Biedermann filed H.B. 1359, Texas Independence Referendum Act. The bill would have put the following question on the November 2021 Ballot: "Should the legislature of the State of Texas submit a plan for leaving the United States of America and establishing an independent republic?" But of course, the political establishment in Texas killed it by not having a committee hearing on the bill. However, the same question could potentially be on the November Ballot in 2023. According to a SurveyUSA poll released in July of this year, 66% of likely Texas voters want Texas to leave the union and "become an independent country." The Republican Party of Texas, which currently holds all statewide offices and the majority in both Houses of the Legislature, adopted the following planks to their party platform at their state convention back in June: Plank 33. State Sovereignty: Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas shall be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto. Plank 225. Texas Independence: We urge the Texas Legislature to pass a bill in its next session requiring a referendum in the 2023 general election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.” Plank 33 and 225 passed with 88.64% and 80.17% support from the delegates. For this issue to be taken to the voters as early as November of 2023, Texans need to start taking action now. If you live in Texas you need to be doing the following BEFORE the November elections: Contacting your state representative and state senator candidates who are most likely going to win in November and letting them know as a constituent you want them to vote YES on a TEXIT referendum bill; with district gerrymandering, it's fairly easy to predict who will win. If you do not know your legislative districts find out here. If you do know your district but don't know the candidates, find out here. Telling your friends and family who support TEXIT or the freedom to vote on the issue to do the same with their candidates. If you have any questions about TEXIT, please visit tnm.me to learn more.
Lets Talk About TEXIT, Vote Could Happen As Soon As Next Year content media
1
0
127
Connor Daigle
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Sep 18, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
On August 19th, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14) introduced H.R.8731, the Protect Children’s Innocence Act. The bill currently has 34 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The official summary of the H.R.8731: This bill places restrictions on the provision of gender affirming care. Gender affirming care includes performing surgery, administering medication, or performing other procedures for the purpose of changing the body of an individual to correspond to a sex that differs from the individual's biological sex. Specifically, the bill makes it a felony to perform any gender affirming care on a minor and it permits a minor on whom such care is performed to bring a civil action against each individual who provided the care. Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for gender affirming care or for health insurance that covers such care. Such care may not be provided in a federal health care facility or by a federal employee. The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for gender affirming care. Further, plans that include coverage for such care are not eligible for federal subsidies. Finally, the bill prohibits institutions of higher education from offering instruction in gender affirming care. It also makes any non-U.S. national (alien under federal law) who performs gender affirming care on a minor deportable and inadmissible to the United States. The restrictions under this bill do not apply to the provision of care under certain circumstances such as when an individual does not have normal sex chromosome structure, sex steroid hormone production, or sex steroid hormone action. To anyone that understands that children can’t change their gender or consent to child gender modification surgery would think this is a great bill, however there’s a problem. The Constitution of the United States lists the specific powers and authority of the federal government in article 1, article 2, and article 3. In none of these articles, including the welfare clause, does it mention healthcare. Which means this issue is reserved to the states, according to the 10th amendment. 10th amendment, United States Constitution: 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. This includes every piece of legislation that Congress has passed in the past that has to do with healthcare, states should and MUST nullify and ignore.
The Constitution Does Not Delegate To The Federal Government Power Over Healthcare, That Includes Rep. MTG’s HR.8731 content media
2
0
527
Connor Daigle
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Sep 17, 2022
In National Constitutionalists
Ever since the Biden Administration took office and opened our southern border, Republican governors have been going on national news saying how bad the border crisis is. For whatever reason, after they couldn't get the Biden Administration or Congress to listen, they thought it was a good idea to transport illegal aliens further into our country. They use the excuse that they are sending them to Democratic "sanctuary cities", so conservatives praise them, not realizing there is a state solution to this issue that doesn't involve transporting illegal aliens further in. Most recently, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) broke the media after sending 50 illegal aliens to Martha's Vineyard. Of course it's a little funny to watch the left contradict themselves, but at what cost? The Border Crisis is more than a Border issue, it's a Constitutional issue and here's why: Once illegal aliens have a legal residency in the United States, they are counted in the United States Census, even if they're non-legal U.S Citizens. The United States census is a census that is legally mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and takes place every 10 years. It lets the United States government know the population growth and decline of a state, which is important for Federal Representation purposes. From the census results, we use the population numbers for the Electoral College. The United States Electoral College is the group of presidential electors required by the Constitution to form every four years for the sole purpose of appointing the president and vice president. Each state and the District of Columbia appoints electors pursuant to the methods described by its legislature, equal in number to its congressional delegation. What does it mean for legal U.S. citizens if non-legal U.S. citizens are creating more representation for a state, which removes representation from another state? Because in order to unlawfully give representation, you have to unlawfully take representation. The United States Constitution requires that the states be guaranteed a Republican form of Government Article 4, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. How are states being guaranteed a Republican form of government when non-U.S. citizens are counted in the process that determines the number of representatives a state will have in Congress as well as how much influence a state will have in the Presidential Election? illegal aliens shouldn't have Representation in the United States Congress, or the White House. The Border Crisis is an invasion, and the constitutional provision shown above also mentions invasion protection. When the federal government refuses to act, the states have jurisdiction to act United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. State action against invasion must be pursuant to their state constitutions. For example, the Texas Constitution allows the Governor of Texas (Greg Abbott) to repel invasions: Article 4, Section 7: GOVERNOR AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES. He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. Each state has something similar to that Texas amendment in their state constitutions, so why aren't they acting? If the issue is with the legal definition of invasion, they can call their state legislature into session to define what constitutes an invasion. You don't make progress doing nothing, and transporting illegal aliens further into our country is doing nothing to fix the issue. States must declare an invasion and deport.
GOP Governors Need to Take Real Action At The Border content media
2
0
209