Subject: Re: LPTexas reply to royce: yet more Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:39:02 -0700 From: "Wesley Burnett" What is the requirement for ratification, Wes? Royce The short answer is ratification in county ratification conventions by at least 176 Texas counties (see details of county convention plans on our web site (www.tcrf.com). In the spring of 1997, a committee of interested citizens was established to research the lawful process for calling a constitutional convention. That committee was formed by delegates from several Texas counties, where citizens had been meeting without coordination with each other, to discuss and debate the drafting of a new constitution for Texas. Greg Scales of Abilene served as chairman of the lawful process subcommittee, I was fortunate to have served on that subcommittee with Greg and Charlie Duncan of Post. Greg had already done quite a bit of legal research on constitutional questions. After several weeks of independent research, we drafted a report to the constitutional convention organizing committee recommending that: 1. Authority for calling a constitutional convention rests on our inherent rights as described in the American Declaration of Independence, and specifically in Texas through the authority of Article 1, Section 2 of the State of Texas constitution (1876); 2. That there are no constitutional nor statutory laws by which to determine lawful process; 3. That the common ingredient for lawful process historically has been proper notice; 4. That proper notice is not defined by law, but Artricle 17 of the State of Texas constitution does define lawful notice for consideration of amendments to the state constitution, therefore we recommended that we exceed the requirements contained in Article 17 (see background info on our web site for completed details www.tcrf.com) 5. That ratification of the new Texas constitution be conducted in a similar fashion to the process used by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution (see Article 7 of the U.S. Constitution), whereby ratification by conventions of two-thirds of the political units making up the State (9 of 13 to form the United States) would be required for implementation of the new constitution, with only those political units approving to be affected; and 6. That 176 Texas counties is in excess of two-thirds of the 254 political units making up the State. Charlie Duncan's brilliant suggestion for using the U.S. model still stands as one of the more important decisions made by the Constitutional Convention of 1997. We believe that if the U.S. convention process was satisfactory for ratification of the U.S. Constitution, then the process we use would certainly have to be acceptable for Texas. Otherwise, the validity of the U.S. constitution would have to be questioned by any who oppose Texans using the same process. Thank you for asking. Wesley Walker Burnett ---------------------------------------------------------- "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom www.tcrf.com ---------------------------------------------------------- The first Texas constitution to contain the principle outlined in Article 1, Section 2 was the one crafted at Washington-on-the-Brazos in 1836. In various forms, it's been in every Texas constitution since then, with the exception of the 1865 document forced on Texas at the point of a bayonet. One of the first actions at the 1876 constitutional convention was the inclusion of Article 1, Section 2 in its present form: 1. "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." Constitution of Texas, February, 1876. Notice the words, "subject to this limitation only," that of preserving a republican form ... notice there is no mention of a "revolution." You are creating illusions which do not exist. The words are powerful and those who prefer the status quo do not like it. There was even an attempt at the state legislature in the last session to completely dump that part of the constitution (see SLEC committee report on constitution comparisons presented at the September 1999 meeting). Another variant exists > in the Montana Constitution, under which the group calling itself Justus > Township decided peacably among themselves to reject government. I have no idea what that township issue was about nor do I see any relevance to what happens in Montana to what happens in Texas. If that is the best evidence you have to support your claim that we are fradulent, I suggest you dig a little deeper. The same > constitution you claim justifies your movement was in existence when, in > 1995, a bunch of self-appointed delegates voted in convention to > re-establish the original Republic of Texas. I know a little about that. Those who met at Bulverde in December of 1995 did so believing that proper notice had been accomplished. Having studied the process that was used to call that convention, it is clear that proper and lawful notice did not in fact take place. When we explored the essentials for lawful notice in the spring of 1997, we discovered that there are no statutory guidelines, but in order to ensure proper notice, we relied on the State of Texas Constitution (Article 17), which specifies lawful notice for constitutional amendments. Using that guideline, we paid for advertisements to be published in 283 Texas newspapers on two consecutive weeks, fulfilling the requirement that printed notice was delivered. We also took the additional step of mailing notices to all 254 county clerks, requesting the posting of the notice on the courthouse bulletin board. Proper notice, according to the standards used by the State of Texas, was accomplished. Your example with the 1995 effort is a valiant attempt to strike at the heart of our process, but it falls short of the mark when measured up with the truth. (see the web page for documentation www.tcrf.com) > > Your methods are not substantially different from those of Justus Township > and the Republic of Texas, as you demonstrated with your laughable > ratification convention in possibly the least populated county east of > IH-45. It is true that only one county convention has been held, and there is good reason for that. Once Sabine County's convention was concluded, it was obvious that there had been no plan developed adequately. Although the basic fundamentals were lawful, the notice and organization was not adequate. As a result, the TCRC stepped back and worked for several months on developing a detailed and comprehensive plan, so that all future county conventions would be carefully organized and aggressively advertised. (see the ratification plan www.tcrf.com) In fact, your methods are substantially INFERIOR to those of the > original secessionists, who at least submitted the issue to the entire > populace of Texas at once and decided based upon the vote of the whole. To which "original secessionists" do you refer? And why does a referendum have to take place all at the same time? The U.S. constitution was ratified by state conventions, and none of them were conducted at the same time, in fact, it took several years to conclude that process. How about pointing out what you consider is "inferior" in our ratification process? Get this, there are no documents or evidence that the 1836 Texas constitution was even ratified by a vote at all (Texas State Archives). In > any case, regardless of your vote, the federal government will move to > enforce its laws upon you and ignore your claims of indepdence, and in the > process innocent people -will- get hurt. > > Kris Overstreet Aha, now we get back to the real crux of the problem you see, the big brother syndrome. So, exactly what laws will be enforced to disrupt or restrain Texans from participating in the peaceful assemblies at county ratification conventions? You have yet to answer that question. You also have not had the courtesy to demonstrate evidence to support your charge that we are behaving in fradulently. Since accusing us of fraud is a very serious matter, you should be forthright with presenting your evidence. ---------------------------------------------- Wesley Walker Burnett Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom www.tcrf.com (806) 495-4135