2016 Primary Election Propositions for Consideration


Thanks to the Texas Republican Party Executive Committee for the following four propositions. They will appear on the 2016 Republican primary ballot.

My thoughtsLenny Leatherman

PROPOSITION 1 Texas should replace the property tax system with an alternative other than an income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden.

My thoughts – Would you agree with me that those who are paying the taxes should have more to say about how property taxes are used than those who do not pay property taxes but benefit the most. If the property tax issue is so politically charged that it cannot be abolished, why not consider a Constitutional Amendment that would require two- thirds voter approval to tax any/all private property? I think that would accomplish two things; give property owners more power at the ballot box and encourage more voter participation.

PROPOSITION 2 Texas cities and counties should be required to comply with federal immigration laws or be penalized by loss of state funds.

My thoughts – I believe it is a direct threat to the safety and swell-being of every law abiding Texan for city/county governments to deliberately disregard federal immigration laws. I totally agree with withholding state funds until cities/counties are in compliance with federal immigration laws.

Further, since federal authorities choose to disregard their own immigration laws, I propose Texas enact laws that make it a felony for a government official at any level in the state of Texas to provide assistance to any illegal alien. Assistance should include but not be limited to the use of public funds, public utilities, public transportation and all other goods and services that would require tax dollar support. I am obviously not an attorney, but since this action would only target Texas officials in violation of Texas law, I think it is reasonable to believe the Feds would have no legitimate objection.

PROPOSITION 3 Texas should prohibit governmental entities from collecting dues for labor unions through deductions from public employee paychecks.

My thoughts – Is there a Texas law that requires state agencies to use tax dollars to collect funds from private citizens to support non-government activities? If no such law exists, why is this extortion tolerated? Absolutely – Texas should stop taking money from individuals who happen to be employed by the state of Texas. If an individual chooses to belong to a union, that is his business, but don’t force me to pay taxes to collect his union dues. Leave me and my taxes out of it.

PROPOSITION 4 Texas and its citizens should strongly assert 10th Amendment Rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution which 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.

My thoughts – Like it or not – we are a Constitutional Republic.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, our elected officials must aggressively defend our rights under the U. S. Constitution of which the 10th Amendment is an integral part. If they fade passively into the squishy “we tried” crowd, I believe they are guilty of dereliction of duty. You say you tried; I say you failed!

Are they not in violation of their oath of office – to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

The Ten Commandments are not The Ten Suggestions. Likewise, the Constitution is not a collection of suggestions, it is the supreme law of the land!


One response

  1. Senator_Blutarsky

    Dont confuse the ” Supremacy Clause ” as a default position to let the Federal Government run roughshod over the states. Thats a knee-jerk response from ill-informed people. If that were the case, there would not be much need for individual state governments.

    Assorted leftwingers, collectivists, and totalitarians LOVE to try to impose the veiled threat of the ” Supremacy Clause ” , in an imposing manner, never intended by the Founding Fathers…


    Critics are quick to point out that the doctrine of nullification has never been legally upheld. In fact, the Supreme Court expressly rejected it – in Ableman v. Booth, 1959, and Cooper v. Aaron, 1958.

    They say that the courts have spoken on the subject, and under the Supremacy Clause, federal law is superior to state law. Further, they argue that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the critics conclude, that the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws but rather, are duty-bound to obey them.

    The fatal flaw in their arguments, however, is that they believe that the judiciary, a branch of the same federal government that tends to overstep their constitutional bounds, is somehow above the law and not subject to the remedy of nullification as the other branches are.

    Another fatal flaw in their argument is that somehow, the Supremacy Clause is a rubber stamp that labels every federal law, every federal court decision, and every federal action “supreme.” They, and especially the justices of the Supreme Court, refer to the Supremacy Clause as if it were the Midas Touch – a magical power that turns EVERYTHING the federal government does, including by all three branches, to gold. Nothing is farther than the truth. The Supremacy Clause states simply: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

    There is no debate that the Constitution, as originally drafted and defended, and as intended and ratified, designed a government of limited powers. Therefore it follows that only laws passed to legislate for the limited functions listed in the Constitution are supreme. Regarding objects and designs not expressly listed in the Constitution, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment remind us that they are reserved to the People or the States, respectively, and the federal government can claim no such supremacy. The Supremacy Clause states a preemptive doctrine that asserts sovereignty just as equally as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments assert sovereignty.

    full article-


%d bloggers like this: