Texas Scorecard: NUTS to the Establishment

 Friday Reflection

NUTS!

by Michael Quinn Sullivan

You have a choice: surrender or keep fighting. Your opponents want your advances to look like losses and your setbacks to be magnified. What will you do?

The name of Anthony McAuliffe isn’t as well-known in the 21st century as it perhaps should be. He was acting commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. He and his soldiers were defending Bastogne in December 1944. They had been cut off, were cold, and running out of everything. The situation was more than unpleasant; it was war.

The German commander sent a message, offering the Americans a chance to surrender. McAuliffe was known to be a man of great restraint, but even he lost his cool at the suggestion. He tossed the message to the ground and used what was, apparently for him, the strongest possible reaction. It was a simple, one-word answer: “Nuts!”

McAuliffe didn’t have an unrealistic view of the situation, but he had an overriding sense of obligation to his mission. His soldiers had created a solid perimeter, and they were committed to the cause.

The result, of course, was that the Allies emerged victorious in the battle and the war.

Texas conservatives are being told to surrender. The uniparty forces of establishmentarians have once again given the speakership of the Texas House to someone selected by the Democrats. All hope is gone, we’re told. You’ve lost. Give up. Go home. Stop fighting.

That’s definitely the message being pushed. And some doom-and-gloomers will want to buy into it. It is, after all, easier to lose. Waving a white flag ahead of your own victory does save you time and trouble. Someone has to win, so why not let it be the other guys, right? It absolves one of governing responsibility.

On the other hand, you’re winning. The conservative movement in Texas has made it further than it ever has before. Why waste that effort? Why waste that momentum?

For 30 years, I’ve been watching the Texas Legislature as a journalist, a political observer, a policy nerd, an activist, and now again as a citizen-journalist. What happened in the Texas House on January 14, 2025, was nothing short of historic.

Not in my memory has there been an actual contested vote with such clear sides. When they could have given up, a majority of the Texas House GOP said, “Nuts!” They voted with their constituents. They voted for Texas.

Many newbies—to Texas or just to Texas politics— probably don’t realize how rare that is. In context, the highwater “opposition” to the uniparty crony candidate for speaker was previously 19. 

In 2024, Texas voters forced two dozen crony Republicans from office and, in doing so, expanded the majority in the state’s House and Senate.

What happened on January 14 was the death rattle of a dying way of life, in which vested interests in Austin profiting off their “service” in the legislature work in opposition to their constituents without accountability or notice. They are losing, and they know it.

Giving up now would be foolish. Victory is in sight. Press forward and tell the opposition that they are nuts. The fight for Texas goes on.

Quote-Unquote

"Never give up the fight for freedom—a fight which, though it may never end, is the most ennobling known to man."

– Ronald Reagan

Liberty Counsel Talks about MassResistance Resolution in Idaho

 

Arthur,

The Idaho legislature is taking a giant step in protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In doing so, the legislature is stating the obvious about marriage and asserting its right as a state. And that step is directly connected to not one, but TWO of our cases here at Liberty Counsel. This development comes just in time for my upcoming oral argument. Help Liberty Counsel defeat the ID National Guard’s “No Christian Commanders” policy and overturn Obergefell with your gift today.

In 2006, Idahoans voted overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment to the state Constitution held until an activist U.S. Supreme Court’s wrongful decision nine years later in Obergefell made up the fiction that marriage is something it isn’t. Shortly after the Obergefell opinion came out on June 26, 2025, our client Kim Davis went to jail for six days as she awaited religious accommodation so that her name would not appear on marriage certificates. Kim’s case wound up winning religious freedom for ALL Kentucky officials. Yet, Kim faces bankruptcy because two men SUED her civilly for exercising the religious freedom rights she fought so hard to win. I will argue Kim’s case on January 30. And just this last year, our client, a commander in the Idaho Army National Guard, was relieved of his command because of his Christian beliefs, which uphold the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Now the Idaho Legislature introduced a resolution demanding the U.S. Supreme Court restore to the states the right to once again affirm that marriage is between one man and one woman and to overturn the Obergefell decision that created this mess. Idaho State Legislator Heather Scott introduced the measure January 7, saying the High Court had exercised “illegitimate overreach” when it decided the Obergefell case. The legislation demands the Court reinstate the “natural definition of marriage” as between one man and one woman. If passed, the Resolution would be largely symbolic, but it will be sent to the Supreme Court as reflecting the will of the people of Idaho. In addition to Kim Davis in Kentucky, the loss of command and abuse our Idaho National Guard client suffered as a result of the Obergefell decision reveals exactly what we have warned about for the last 10 years — that Obergefell would be used to eliminate the religious freedom of Christians. Kim Davis faces bankruptcy for exercising her religious freedom rights. The Idaho Army National Guard officer has lost his command. Liberty Counsel continues to fight in both of these cases. And, we intend to take Kim’s case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure the LGBTQ lobby can never again erase religious freedom rights. And while we are at it, we are going to ask the Court to overturn the Obergefell decision that created these awful messes. If we win, these two obedient followers of God will have their lives and livelihoods restored. And states like Idaho may once again have their right to define marriage restored. But that can only happen with YOUR help. Liberty Counsel NEVER charges our clients because we know that few people could afford to defend themselves and their rights against government gone mad. Instead, they rely on YOU, the faithful Liberty Counsel supporter. Praise God, a generous supporter has extended a special Challenge Grant to support our work. Every donation made today — including recurring monthly donations — will be DOUBLED in impact by the grant. Please, make your best gift today so that not one more Christian can be sued, fired, or punished for following the will of God.

Pray for Kim Davis, the Idaho commander, and their families. These good people have been punished for their faithfulness to the Lord. Mat Staver Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel

P.S. We need your help to help those pleading for assistance. DOUBLE THE IMPACT OF YOUR GIFT with our Challenge Grant.

Then Tenth Amendment, Explained

 

10th Amendment Explained Tench Coxe on Delegated vs Reserved - State vs Federal Power (article | podcast)

"Independent of the control or interference of the federal government." That’s how Tench Coxe described the vast majority of power under the Constitution - reserved to the states and completely off-limits to federal authority. Perhaps better than any other supporter of the Constitution, Coxe explained federalism – the division of powers between the state and federal governments. Today, as we live under the largest government in world history, understanding his insights into this foundational structure of the constitution is more important than ever. The Foundation Thomas Jefferson described the system of federalism - as expressed in the 10th Amendment - as the foundation of the entire Constitution: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’” Jefferson's opinion on the constitutionality of the national bank - Feb. 15, 1791 - was ten months to the day before the 10th Amendment was ratified. But the principle behind it wasn't something he came up with on his own. It was a cornerstone of the ratification debates in 1787-88. James Madison captured this structure succinctly in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Other prominent figures echoed this sentiment: James Wilson: “Every thing which is not given, is reserved.” Edmund Randolph: “Every power not given it by this system is left with the states.” Alexander Hamilton: “Whatever is not expressly given to the federal head, is reserved to the members.” Here, we see a clear and unified alignment among some of the most influential supporters of ratification - the "father of the Constitution," one of the first Supreme Court justices, and Hamilton, George Washington’s right-hand man - all affirming the same foundational principle of delegated and reserved powers. Anti-Federalist Calls for Explicit Limits on Federal Power The Anti-Federalists also supported this principle - but they insisted it be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution itself. For example, John Williams of New York argued that “The general government ought to be confined to certain national objects; and the States should retain such powers, as concern their own internal police." Similarly, George Mason said he wished for "a clause in the Constitution with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the States. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction." The Anti-Federalists won this battle, resulting in the inclusion of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights to explicitly enshrine the system of delegated and reserved powers that Federalists had described during the ratification debates. “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.” Learn more about this essential history they don’t teach in government schools. Podcast - 10th Amendment Explained: Tench Coxe on State vs Federal Power Article - Federalism and the 10th Amendment: Tench Coxe Explains Delegated and Reserved Powers Nine Categories of Power Off-Limits to the Feds Tench Coxe was one of the most influential writers during the ratification debates. His essays, widely published and read, offered detailed explanations of the Constitution's limits on federal power and the expansive authority reserved to the states. In one of his essays, he stated: “I shall endeavour to exhibit clear and permanent marks and lines of separate sovereignty, which must ever distinguish and circumscribe each of the several states, and prevent their annihilation by the federal government, or any of its operations.” Coxe laid out a careful delineation between the specific enumerated powers delegated to the federal government and the mass of powers remaining with the states. He hammered this theme in several of his essays, including several lists of powers that would specifically remain with the state governments and those off limits to the general government. This included nine broad areas in which the federal government is not authorized to act - at all: Train the militia or appoint its officers Fix the qualifications for electors of the president and vice president Control the elections to fill vacancies in the House and Senate Interfere in state courts or determine the criminal offenses of the state Elect a president, vice president, senator or representative Determine the place of choosing senators Enact laws for the inspection of the produce of the country. Appoint or commission any state officer, legislative, executive, or judicial Interfere with, alter, or amend the constitution of any state A Broad 10th Category Off-Limits to the Feds In addition to these nine, Coxe included a 10th, an entire category covering a vast number of policy areas that are reserved for the states and off limits to the federal government: "They cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries; establishment of state seminaries of learning; libraries; literary, religious, trading or manufacturing societies" Coxe elaborated further, emphasizing what he called a "vast reservoir" of reserved powers: "They cannot interfere with erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or boroughs; creating new state offices; building light houses, public wharves, county gaols, markets, or other public buildings; making sale of state lands, and other state property" Finally, Coxe underscored sweeping limitations on federal power over state matters, securing the independence and sovereignty reserved to the states: "They cannot interfere with executing the state laws; altering the criminal law; nor can they do any other matter or thing appertaining to the internal affairs of any state, whether legislative, executive or judicial, civil or ecclesiastical." A Vast Reservoir Tench Coxe described the expansive set of powers reserved to the states as a “vast reservoir,” entirely beyond the reach of federal interference. He emphasized the breadth and significance of these powers through detailed examples. A valuable resource to learn the original, legal meaning of the Constitution as understood by the founders and ratifiers, and the limits it places on the federal government. get it here Coxe first summarized this vast reservoir of state powers, listing numerous areas entirely controlled by the states and off-limits to federal authority: "The several states can create corporations civil and religious; prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports; establish seminaries of learning; erect boroughs, cities and counties; promote and establish manufactures; licence taverns; alter the criminal law; constitute new courts and offices;establish ferries; erect public buildings; sell, lease and appropriate the proceeds and rents of their lands, and of every other species of state property" He expanded on this theme, highlighting more state responsibilities vital to the well-being of the people: "[The states can] establish poor houses, hospitals, and houses of employment; regulate the police; and many other things of the utmost importance to the happiness of their respective citizens." Beyond the specific examples Coxe listed, he emphasized that the states retained a virtually limitless array of additional powers, entirely off-limits to the federal government - underscoring the expansive scope of reserved powers. "In short, besides the particulars enumerated, every thing of a domestic nature must or can be done by them." Through these detailed explanations, Tench Coxe painted a vivid picture of the wide range of reserved power and the specific restrictions placed on federal power - and just how far things have gone off the rails today. It’s no wonder the government-run schools never teach us much about Tench Coxe – one of the most important and influential founders during the time of ratification. That’s part of why we work so hard every single day to reach and teach more people about this essential history - and these essential foundational principles behind the Constitution. Your membership support has been crucial - THANK YOU for putting your financial faith behind our work. Concordia res parvae crescunt (small things grow great by concord) Michael Boldin, TAC