(formerly called the Texas Independence Association)
We are not a secessionist group. Our purpose is to legally and peacefully advocate for political reform to reduce or eliminate the excessive meddling by the US government in the affairs of the several States, starting here with Texas. We are in that sense working to make the States once again more independent of the US, as they were originally supposed to be, as recognized by the 10th Amendment to the US 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." Also relevant here is the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We consider secession to be a last resort. For those looking for that, we can tell you where to look. Secession should not be ruled out entirely, but we hope that it won't be necessary.
America was conceived and designed to be a very loose confederation of almost totally independent republics, referred to as States. The term State actually means a separate country with its own government; not a mere province as they have effectively become in the US. Politicians, like kings, tend to get it backwards; they think that the biggest levels of government should have the most power and authority and share lesser and lesser amounts of that with the smaller levels of government until very little is left for the individual. America was founded upon the opposite idea, that sovereignty and freedom are the birthright of the individual, who delegates only certain specified privileges to small local governments, which then delegate even fewer powers to larger governments. This principle was originally called Federalism but the Anti-Federalists advocated it more strongly than the Federalists.
Thus, whenever interpreting any law, constitution, amendment, court ruling, or other government action, whether actual or proposed, these principles should always be the guiding rules. Power flows (and is delegated) from the individual to smaller organizations and from there to larger ones, not the other way around, and therefore any Articles, Constitution, or other contract must be interpreted in every way as to restrict the powers of government (especially larger governments) as much as possible and to preserve the rights of individuals as much as possible. Any possible ambiguity, uncertainty, or benefit of the doubt should be construed in favor of the individual against the government, and within the latter, in favor of smaller, more local government against larger government. Governments have only the privileges and powers that are explicitly granted to them, while individuals retain all of their rights except those which they have specifically, explicitly, and exclusively delegated to government. And since one individual cannot delegate or otherwise violate another's rights without their permission, only an individual who explicitly and personally signed the applicable constitution, or otherwise explicitly consented, has so delegated those rights, and only each right which he has specifically delegated, and no others. Government by its very nature, being an organization rather than an individual, does not have rights, only privileges. With respect to any particular individual, government does not have any privileges not specifically and explicitly delegated by such individual.
The US government has violated its founding documents in so many ways that we cannot address them all. Our approach is based on the assumption that political action (educating the voters and getting them to vote accordingly) could actually work to effectively restore the rights of the individual and state and local governments, under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Our task now is to educate the voters on this situation so that they'll vote for candidates who really understand and follow this principle, that individuals delegate specific powers to government, not the other way around. We will recommend for or against particular candidates, issues, and other things, but we do not handle contributions. As a general rule, Libertarian Party candidates are the best, since the LP was founded upon this principle as well as the Non-Aggression Principle. Communists, nazis, fascists, and socialists are usually the worst. Most Republicans and Democrats are almost as bad and should be voted out at every opportunity. The main exception, probably the only one, is Dr. Ron Paul, who is libertarian at heart but usually runs as a Republican. Other 3rd parties are a mixed bag, good on some issues but terrible on others, but it is important to break the 2 party monopoly as soon as possible. We are not the organization called Independent Texans although we do share the common goal of breaking up the 2 party monopoly so that the voters have real choices.
So our recommended voting procedure is, first, punch the Libertarian Party option as a starting point. Then, if we have a specific recommendation on a particular candidate or issue (or if you have a very strong opinion on it), vote accordingly. Then, if Ron Paul is anywhere on the ballot, vote for him, regardless of party, as he should have a better chance to win than most LP candidates and will at least move America back in a libertarian direction as it was founded to be. Then vote for all the Libertarians you can find. If there are any races with no Libertarian but with some other 3rd party (this is rare) or Independent, vote for the other 3rd party or Independent. If there's only a Republican and a Democrat, vote against the incumbent if you know which. Otherwise, don't even vote unless you really believe that one is even worse than the other; and see below.
The 2 party monopoly entrenches itself by discriminatory election laws, propaganda (encouraging social prejudice against 3rd parties), and the deliberately maintained illusion that the Republocrats and the Demoblicans are significantly different. Most people fall into the trap of voting for the "lesser of the 2 evils" as a result. The easiest and surest way around this is for each of you to find a trustworthy counterpart that feels the opposite way. For example, a conservative might like the Libertarian Party or the so-called Constitution Party but might be so afraid of the Democrats that he votes for Republicans instead. A liberal might like the Greens or Libertarians but might be so afraid of the Republicans that he votes for Democrats instead. These two people should find each other and agree not to vote for the Republicans or Democrats either one, but actually vote for the 3rd party or independent which they really prefer. This solves the problem by letting everyone vote honestly for a change without having to worry about "wasting their vote" - indeed, voting honestly is the way to avoid wasting their vote. Now their votes really mean something.
Further solving this problem requires voting reform, but Instant Runoff Voting and most other proposed methods are hardly any better than the plurality voting system we have now. Apparently there's an entire branch of math devoted to analyzing different voting methods, and it turns out that many voting methods have really bizarre side effects, like sometimes when a candidate gets more votes, it actually hurts him instead of helping him. The best method appears to be Range Voting, and the best method in multiple seat elections (where it's very important to have Proportional Representation) is a variation of Range Voting with some kind of reweighting or normalization. Range Voting is very simple, it's like judging the Olympics, it's like taking a survey and asking everyone to rate each candidate on a scale, it's like grading the candidates as if they were students and you get to be the teacher. Consider each candidate independently and vote honestly; you can give the highest scores to the candidates you really like the best, and still give the most popular candidates the mediocre or lousy ratings they really deserve, without wasting your vote. The simplest form of Range Voting is Approval Voting, where you simply vote for all the candidates you like, and not the ones you don't. Both methods are easy to implement in both new and old voting machines; the only problem is getting the politicians to pass it.
For example, the Texas election and ballot access laws are among the worst in the US - they actually deprive Texans of the same rights that other voters enjoy. This is about your right to sign a petition to allow a 3rd party to even be on the ballot. Not only do the 3rd parties have to collect an awesome number of signatures in a short time (unless they won a certain percentage of the vote in a recent statewide election), they can't start until after the primaries, and if you voted in a primary, you can't sign the 3rd party petitions! And if you sign one party's petition, you can't sign any other's. You should have the same rights other voters have to support the rights of 3rd parties to run for office. After all, it's only fair that they have a chance too - but the election laws are written by the Republocrats and Demoblicans, and they want to maintain their monopoly. Notice that they don't have to comply with the same laws that they force on 3rd parties and independents.
Computerized voting machines have been criticized for not producing printouts or other auditable means of verification, and for being too easy to hack. The machines and procedures should be changed not only to produce a human-readable printout for verification, but also to be unable to cheat by printing the votes one way but actually recording them another. Perhaps the best approach (but not the cheapest or most efficient) would be for one computer to allow easy entering of votes as they do now, but have it produce a printout which the voter can check, and can correct his votes on the computer until the printout is correct, and then take the printout to a second computer (made and programmed by different and unrelated companies than the first) which actually reads the printout and records the votes from it and makes another printout which the voter can compare with the first printout and also keep as a receipt. The first printout would then go into a box for manual backup, and the votes recorded by the first and second computers would go into separate files, transmitted by different connections to separate computers, etc. so that at the central vote counting office, both sets of computer recorded votes can be compared by a third computer (also made and programmed by different and unrelated companies than the other two), and if they disagree or are challenged, the printouts can also be checked to compare against. And before the printouts are sent to the central office, they and the computer records and totals could also be checked at the precinct and county level as well. All of these checks should be performed in the presence of representatives of each party and independent. Of course, this is a more expensive and inefficient method, but it's a sad commentary on the ethics of vote counting in the US that now we need something like this to restore confidence that the votes will actually be counted accurately.
To be clear, the purpose of the Tenth Amendment Association is not to support Libertarians just because they're Libertarians. We are here to support candidates and measures that will restore the proper balance of power between the Federal, State, and local governments and individuals, and make the States once again more independent of the US. Politicians, like kings, tend to get it backwards; they think that the biggest levels of government should have the most power and authority and share lesser and lesser amounts of that with the smaller levels of government until very little is left for the individual. America was founded upon the opposite idea, that sovereignty and freedom are the birthright of the individual, who delegates only certain specified privileges to small local governments, which then delegate even fewer powers to larger governments. Let's remind the politicians of that by firing the ones that forget! Vote against the Democrats and Republicans (except Ron Paul) every chance you get! The sooner we can get to a coalition government, where no party has over 30% of the vote, the sooner we can get the politicians to finally listen to the people for a change, and the sooner we can get the overbearing US government off our backs and let the States stand proud and free again.
For now, see above. If and when we find out anything more specific, we'll mention it.
Possibly the best approach at decentralizing government is Virtual Cantons. Although this is being worked on at a small level, it will be some time before it can be implemented on a significant scale. Let us know if you're interested in working on this long-term project.
(to be continued...)
Feel free to send email. Please do not try to harvest this address for later.
We use SpamArrest and will not tolerate spammers or flamers.
This web site is under construction.