Author: Stephanie Phelps

    April Informational Meeting!

    April Informational Meeting!

    March 27, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in

    BCRP is excited to be hosting

    BRANDON WALTENS

    Senior Editor of  TEXAS SCORECARD 

    at our April Monthly Informational Meeting!

    Brandon will be sharing his insight on the latest news regarding the Texas Legislation. 

    Please join us April 28!

    BCRP Office

    443 Highway 71, Bastrop

    (Next to Harbor Freight)

    Doors open at 6pm

    Brandon serves as the Senior Editor for Texas Scorecard. After managing successful campaigns for top conservative legislators and serving as a Chief of Staff in the Texas Capitol, Brandon moved outside the dome in order to shine a spotlight on conservative victories and establishment corruption in Austin.

    Washington’s Farewell Address & His Vision for the United States – by Dianna Greenwood

    Washington’s Farewell Address & His Vision for the United States – by Dianna Greenwood

    March 14, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    What does The Farwell Address tell us about Washington’s vision for the United States?

    Quite possibly one of the most eloquent farewell addresses written, Washington’s final Address to the American people encompasses his triumphs, hopes, and vision for the country. This speech is full of sincere advice for the country’s direction. Yet, simultaneously, he is genuinely concerned with what people will think of his administration and assures them he took the actions he did with the best intentions for their future prosperity. It is a mini treatise on statesmanship.

    First, Washington informs the reader that the speech is grounded in his true feelings rather than political cautiousness. It is because he has nothing ahead of him that prevents him from revealing his true feelings on individual and collective happiness, which are manifestly tied to unity in government. This is because he has “declined being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made” regarding the presidential election 1796. He further states that what unites us is our government and our love for liberty and freedom. To preserve that liberty and independence, we must “cherish a cordial, habitual and immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity…” For if we do not, there are plenty of people “from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth….” He says we must be careful and aware of those who would subvert liberty and freedom for the country.

    This is our common cause as Americans because while we are citizens by birth or choice, we must always exhibit “the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” His intent in writing this is that we might have sectional differences, which should not override the fact that we are Americans, which is suitable for everyone. In other words, we must be wise, prudent, educate ourselves, and act prudently because self-government and freedom are hard to keep and easy to lose. Some of this is because humans will find the interests closest to them to be the most important rather than looking at the country as a whole. In the speech, he describes the differences between the North and the South and how, even though we have these differences, we must work together because it benefits everyone. It is a Hobbesian state of nature where everyone is at War with one another because we are pursuing our interests, and to pursue that personal interest, we must see the whole and how each part of the country benefits from the other.

    This emphasizes individual interests and not group interests. Washington is telling us that we have consented to leave a state of nature where no government exists out of necessity because an individual can no longer protect their natural rights and need help from others. It is not collectiveness but a need to secure the individual’s rights, and others have consented to this idea to form a civil society. For our country, it was a universal consent, not a majority rule forced upon us by an individual, but we all decided this. We cannot be deprived of our interests. Still, it is natural that like-minded people come together in a faction and then move into political parties to secure their interests. While there were no actual political parties, de facto parties such as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists debated how the Constitution was intended to govern the country.

    Washington had a perfect sense of interest and factions because he didn’t piddle around in it but had a greater sphere of action and could see everything (per se) rather than a small fraction of the whole sphere. We can compare this to how a quarterback can see the full view of the football field before throwing the ball. This is what made him successful. But he doesn’t just focus on factions but warns us about the dangers of political parties when there is no opposing view to counteract it. He warns that without opposing views, a single party or faction can take over and impose tyranny on the people. While factions are needed to a certain extent, they can be dangerous because factions can and will encourage oppression. While it is natural to pursue an interest and form factions with others who have the same interest, we cannot let them get out of control and take over because it results in the end game of oppression. He, of course, has read Federalist 10 and understands the necessity of factions but warns the people against them.

    He continues to preach many things in this Address that are universal and based on logic and reason, such as the spirit and innovation of the Constitution. He believes they had elevated the human condition and demanded that humans become serious beings and live up to their potential, encompassing what was right and wrong with the world. It was not the I am what I am like in the old days or back in Europe with the aristocracy, but I will be what I can achieve. You do this by not limiting yourself, talking to each other, and becoming educated. He was keen on the idea that education frees you from the banal, silly, and ridiculous circumstances that one can find oneself in, and you, as an individual, can elevate yourself to equality.

    He spent a great deal of time speaking of parties/factions and the individual, but he also touched on something that many have ignored, especially since World War II, which is to be careful with foreign nations. In this section, there was a passage that caught my attention where Washington states:

    In executing such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The Nation that indulges toward another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is, to some degree, a slave.

    He isn’t talking about not having alliances but not having permanent alliances because it makes you less independent and more dependent on that Nation. Additionally, you cannot trust them because they are in the habit of changing regimes with a good chance of implementing one that may or may not honor your treaties. Washington would have been against Most Favored Nation status being given to a country because of the imbalance it can create. We see his wise warnings about China – we now have a tremendous trade imbalance. Still, his warnings ring true with other treaties such as NAFTA, where we again see a trade imbalance that makes us more dependent on other nations economically and less independent to a certain degree.

    Washington then begins talking about economics and various other issues before ending the Address regarding neutrality and a review of his administration. He makes no apologies for neutrality and reasons that it has allowed us to “endeavor to gain time to our own country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strengths and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its fortunes.” In other words, we are not yet at a point where we can become involved in other countries’ issues, and based on his previous statements regarding caution against favoring nations, it is best to work on ourselves.

    Finally, Washington concludes the essay by noting that he did nothing with malice. It hopes that history will view him favorably in that his work was done for the people and those items that were mistakes based on incompetence would be discarded to the dustbin of history and that he will revere retirement but that the citizens of the United States will always be in his heart.

    It is worth noting that this speech is not often taught in school and not in high school anymore, where U.S. History classes only begin post-Civil War rather than pre-Jamestown. What a huge loss for our students and our country to be deprived of learning this and other significant historical and political works of our country. Without this knowledge and education, how can we continue to be the beacon of the free world?

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

    Civility and Politics – By Dianna Greenwood

    Civility and Politics – By Dianna Greenwood

    March 7, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in /

    I have previously written on this subject twice before – once in 2018 for the Bastrop Advertiser and again in 2023 for the TSRA Sportsman utilizing the same piece with minor differences. I am once again using the same piece with minor changes.

    Civility in politics seems like a lost art form in today’s society. We have political leaders speaking in derogatory terms, name-calling to suit their purposes, others using vitriolic language to encourage their supporters in the oppression of others, and then there are the supporters of these so-called political leaders who emulate this practice of incivility to the detriment of our political process. Now, when I say oppression of others, I mean in the form of speech and/or liberty, not the oppression of others who lack common sense or are trying to convince us that reality isn’t reality and their view of the world is correct. Everything we have known for a millennium is incorrect.

    In 1800, the first contested presidential election, the country experienced what history has called the most vitriolic campaign. Unlike today, where candidates actually campaign, it was surrogates who campaigned for the candidates. Those surrogates were out for blood; every insult was on the table, and neither candidate was immune to it. The insults flew, and each candidate was complicit behind the scenes while acting as though they were publicly above the fray. From questioning whether Jefferson was an adulterous hermaphrodite atheist to alleging Adams was an anti-republican nutjob who wanted to become King, the insults were fast, furious, and downright vitriolic. It was so vitriolic that the close friendship between Jefferson and Adams was severed for over a decade. Frankly, it was worse than anything we have seen in politics today.

    Fast forward to the election of 1828, and we see Andrew Jackson’s wife being attacked and accused of adulterous behavior because Jackson courted her before her divorce was final. It is said to have affected her so badly it contributed to her early death. Jackson would never get over it and made it his life’s mission to punish his political enemies for their attacks on his wife. And it continues through the years, right down through to our own time, where we see attacks on the president’s family, attacks on Senators and Congressmen, whether true or not, to the point where they have been physically hurt. How far do we have to sink before enough is enough? How many more Congressmen have to be shot, or political leaders run out of restaurants before we say enough is enough?

    For years, elections have become more about celebrity or who can get the best jab in and less about policy. It has escalated in recent years to a point where those who have loved politics their whole lives have grown weary of the name-calling and false accusations. We saw it nationally during the presidential campaign with the useless name-calling that was cheered on by people on both sides. And on a local level, we saw this type of behavior in 2018 during the BCRP Chairman race and in 2020 during the county judge race. We are witnessing candidate surrogates do the same thing again locally in 2025. We are going to attack candidates now for the job they hold as they attempt to seek a non-partisan office where they do not get paid.

    The attacks coming out against a local candidate because of the job they hold are absolutely ridiculous and right out of a Democrat playbook. If you don’t agree with someone’s choice of job or religious identity, that is fine, but give real reasons why they should not hold a position in the community. When you attack them for the job they have or their religious beliefs because they are different from yours, it makes you and the candidate you are supporting look petty and entitled. It wasn’t too long ago that Catholics were forbidden from holding elective office and practicing law. One of our Founding Fathers, Charles Caroll of Carrolton, was an educated lawyer. Still, prior to the American Revolution, he was prevented from serving in office or being a lawyer only because he was Catholic. In fact, as a Catholic, he wasn’t even considered a full citizen. It is worth noting that preachers were key participants in the American Revolution because they preached politics from the pulpit, encouraging people to get involved. A presbyterian preacher from New Jersey signed the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon.

    All this incivility and nonsense has done is split the American people into them and us to the point where friendships are being severed over politics. It is not worth it and has no place in a civil society. We need to respect people’s opinions and reasons for running even if we don’t agree with them, and nothing obligates us to agree with them. Before you open your mouth and accuse someone of bringing their “religious” beliefs into an issue, actually listen to what they have to say. You may be surprised to learn their reasons are not religious at all but actually based on policy and substandard results.

    As we talk, you will find that we have more in common than previously thought. Many, not all, of our differences are based on simple policy issues rather than vast differences. Yes, there are issues on which we will not come to a consensus su, such as abortion or gun control, but there are so many other fiscal, educational, and social issues we can fix through meaningful and respectful conversations. To be sure, there are folks on each side of the political spectrum who are unreasonable and refuse to engage in meaningful conversation to find common ground, but those voices don’t represent the vast majority of us. If you will attack politically, do it based on facts or actions, and refrain from attacking based on looks, family, jobs held, or economic standing.

    As a young man, George Washington wrote down 110 Rules of Civility so that he would have a moral compass to follow as he grew into adulthood. Rule # 73 states, “Think before you speak; pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly.”   If you follow this simple rule, your opinions will be valued and not dismissed as crazy rhetoric. Meaningful, reasoned, and well-argued opinions are the cornerstone of American politics and help us preserve our republican government for future generations.

    Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

    Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

    February 22, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in /

    In the late 1790s, prior to his death, George Washington was trying to reduce his land holdings and simplify his operations when his farm manager, a Scotsman named James Anderson, introduced him to distilling and the potential income that it could produce for the farm. The irony with this choice was that Washington had no previous experience in the process and utilized his farm manager’s experience to open a successful distillery.

    Alcohol was widely consumed in Colonial America and, subsequently, the new nation because of the potential for diseases in freshwater. It was also widely used in social situations, medicinally, and trade or commerce, especially in remote areas of the new country. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 is an example of how alcohol was used for trade and commerce because of the rugged landscape, which made shipment of grains difficult and expensive.

    Washington was hesitant at first to pursue another business venture due to his age, but Anderson persuaded him that it would be profitable due to the abundant crops and gristmill that Washington owned. Washington planted rye as a cover crop to keep his soil healthy for future crop plantings. In addition, unlike other large plantations such as Monticello, Mt. Vernon had a steady water supply. Anderson had extensive experience in distilling from his previous employments in Scotland and other parts of Virginia.

    After corresponding with a friend and listening to Anderson’s pitch, Washington entered the Whiskey business in 1797. During the first winter, two stills were used to produce whiskey, which totaled about 616 gallons. However, by 1798, Washington built a malthouse near the gristmill. It installed five copper stills, boilers, and tubs to increase production, and a system of wooden troughs was installed to transport water from the nearby creek into the distillery. The malt house was the largest distillery in the country, measuring 75 by 30 feet, and all five stills operated year-round. This was in contrast to the average distillery, which was 20×40 feet with only two stills maximum operating for a few months out of the year.

    Washington’s distillery operation was highly successful during his time. It produced nearly 11,000 gallons of whiskey in 1799, most of which was common whiskey, which was packaged and sold immediately to local merchants. He did have smaller batches of whiskey that were either distilled multiple times or flavored. Most of his whiskey was made of distilled rye, but when that was not in abundance, sometimes wheat was used.

    In those days, whiskey was not aged as it is now; instead, it was placed in uncharred barrels and sold to neighbors and merchants in Alexandria. This enabled Washington to make money immediately rather than wait for the whiskey to age several years and then reap a profit. His best customer was also a close friend, George Gilpin, but other merchants, farmers, and the people who worked at Mt. Vernon would purchase the whiskey. In those days, whiskey cost around 50 cents a gallon unless the higher-quality version was approximately $1.00 per gallon. In 1799, Washington made approximately $7600.00. In 1798, Washington paid $332 in taxes on his distillery production.

    Washington’s distillery continued to produce whiskey products after his death in 1799. It passed to his nephew, Lawrence Lewis, who continued the business until a fire destroyed it in 1814. The buildings were abandoned, and the entire operation would have been forgotten had it not been for Washington himself. He wrote about his operations in letters to others and we do have his ledgers to inform us of the financial aspect of running a distillery. To learn more about this and other business ventures of General George Washington please visit www.mountvernon.org. While there you will find out an abundance of information about the people[i] who worked at the distillery and on Washington’s plantations as well as learn about the man himself. He is a fascinating individual who without a doubt earned the title of First Citizen.

    [i] Both free and enslaved people worked at the distillery, and it shatters the myth that all slaves worked in either the house or the fields. Many learned valuable trades that were passed down to their descendants.

    Issue #2 of the Legislative Review: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

    Issue #2 of the Legislative Review: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

    February 13, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    THE CLOCK'S A TICKIN!

    By Doug Kelsay, - Precinct Chair for Precinct 2014 & Curtis Courtney - BCRP Chairman

    In our last article we described, how on Saturday, December 7, 2025 Representative David Cook was selected as the Republican Caucus nominee and that the Caucus rules state that all Republicans should support the caucus nominee.

    As the Texas House opened for business on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, selecting the Speaker was the first (and only) work to be addressed.

    David Cook received 55 votes (Rep 52, Dem 3) and Dustin Burrows received 85 votes (49 Dem and 36 Rep) to win the Speaker of the House race. It was clear that not all of the 88 Republican representatives were following the Caucus agreement. It is also evident that almost all of the Democrat representatives favored Dustin Burrow. District 17 House Representative Stan Gerdes voted for Dustin Burrows for Speaker.

    No other business was conducted the rest of that day as well as for the rest of the week.

    Without previously having addressed any legislative priorities, the house convened on Thursday, January 23, 2025 to review house rules. HR4 (House Rules) was delivered at 4am to the representative’s offices which contained 213 pages.

    Some of the key changes included in the Rules package were:

    • vice chairmanship of all committee to Democrats;
    • the (Republican) chairman must ensure that Democrat vice chairman can promptly schedule any matter he or she pleases;
    • the (Republican) chairman must ensure designated witnesses, selected by the Democrat vice chair, are invited to testify at hearings;
    • provide a budget for those vice-chairmen of some $4000 per month;
    • create 12 new Permanent Standing Subcommittees;
    • allow those Permanent Standing Subcommittees to be chaired by Democrats;
    • allows the Speaker to refer bills to those Permanent Standing Subcommittees;
    • allows bills to be killed by those Permanent Standing Subcommittees.

    It is easy to see how these Rules would empower Democrats to thwart the Republican agenda.

    When the house convened, that day, 21 amendments were offered but Representative Jared Patterson (R-106) “called the question” a procedural maneuver that means there would be no debate nor amendments considered and the original proposal would go straight to a vote. A motion to call the question must have 25 seconds. Representative Stan Gerdes was one of the 25 who voted to second the motion.

    Tom Glass commented in a recent newsletter that “Because such a motion denies voices speaking for the voters and because it negates the very essence of representative democracy, it is called the “nuclear option”. One indicator of this as a raw power move was that 47 Republicans and 42 Democrats were given enough advance notice of the motion to be able to sign on to the motion which requires a minimum of 25 to be introduced. Yet the 34 Republican grassroots members who voted against the suppression were blindsided by the move. They had spent their morning scrambling to craft amendments to the package. I saw the grassroots members hustling to confer with each other that morning, but there was strangely very little visible action by the group made up of republicans and democrats”.

    Texas Scorecard reported that the new rules maintain and expand “a power-sharing arrangement between Republicans and Democrats, granting Democrat vice-chairs significant authority and introducing pathways for Democrat control of new standing subcommittees. While Republicans would only be eligible to serve as chairs, all vice-chairs would be required to be Democrats.”

    On Monday, January 27, 2025, Speaker Burrows announced that they would not vote Housekeeping Resolution (HR3-36 pages) that details the speaker’s responsibilities, powers of the House Administrative committee, employment policies, accounting, caucuses and work place conduct. Instead, Speaker Burrows said they would change the office budgets without a vote.

    On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Speaker Burrows blocked discussion on several pre-filed amendments. Among the amendments prevented from reaching the floor were proposals to:

    • Require that all House employees be US citizens,
    • Restrict restroom access in the House chamber based on biological sex,
    • Prohibit staff from enforcing the use of “preferred pronouns,”
    • Reduce office budgets if the House does not deliver at least $12 billion in property tax relief this session,
    • Ban alcohol in any House offices, including the Speaker’s office,
    • Mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber.

    On Wednesday, January 29, 2025, the house met and adjourned to February 4, 2025. It should be noted that other than “No Democrat Committee chairs”, no substantive legislative priorities have yet been addressed – a full three weeks into a 140 day session!

    We are very excited to report, however, that the Texas House was able to meet on Tuesday, February 4, 2025 to pass a Resolution congratulating singer ‘Beyonce’ on her Grammy Awards. It’s comforting to know that the important work that the people of Texas demand is being thoroughly addressed. Or maybe not. 

    As of February 4, 2025, there are 119 days left in this session of the Texas Congress.

    The clock’s a tickin’.

    Can Federal Law be Nullified by the States? By Dianna Greenwood

    Can Federal Law be Nullified by the States? By Dianna Greenwood

    February 8, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in /

    Nullification, often linked to states’ rights by those wary of federal overreach, has been the subject of heated debates for over two centuries. These discussions, with their rich history and complex implications, are likely to persist. However, it is important to note that nullification of federal laws under the U.S. Constitution is strictly prohibited under Article VI Section 2:

    This  Constitution, and the Law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The popularity of nullification has increased and decreased depending on the political climate. This is because people believe that the national government has abandoned the idea of protecting natural rights, which are inherent to all individuals, and replaced it with protecting the government’s power. If you understand the original concept of the federal government, in which a limited government was split between the national and state levels, then you would also understand why the Founders were intent on this form of government.

    What onerous things does the federal government do that we would consider an overreach? Health care, environmental issues, and overregulation are among those items that many Americans consider an overreach of the national government. The national government entering issues it was never intended to solve gives a perception of the government picking winners or “groups” over the individual. So, how do we solve these problems? Do we nullify laws or secede?

    People continue to have this debate, which is a vibrant one because they are seeing the same phenomenon across all issues – a tendency and inclination to expand the powers of the government. People want a restraint on the government but do not seem to have an outlet to express this view because we view all three branches as colluding. What happens is that we do not, as Americans, promote lawlessness, and we are not yet at the point of revolution like our Founders were, so the populace turns to the states and nullification. These are great conversations, but nullification is unconstitutional as there is no right in the U.S. Constitution for states or individuals to nullify federal law. The debate over nullification was particularly heated during the time of the Alien and Sedition Act, a controversial law that criminalized criticism of the government and was seen as a clear overreach of federal power.

    However, this does not mean that resistance is futile. The judicial system and the election of representatives who align with the will of the people and the states are viable alternatives. It’s important to remember that we didn’t secede from Great Britain; we fought a revolution based on natural rights and a long train of abuse and usurpations.  Revolution should be the last resort, not the first, as it cannot be for light and transient reasons, unlike the Civil War, where secession happened over a single issue – slavery.

    Historically speaking, both Jefferson and Madison addressed the issue of nullification through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Unlike the Kentucky Resolution, which took a radical approach, the Virginia Resolution used the idea that a plurality of states needed to show the unjustness of a law when determining that a law should not be followed. Both resolutions were written in direct opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act, which was blatantly unconstitutional.

    Fast forward to the march to the Civil War, Jefferson Davis disavowed nullification, deeming it unconstitutional, even though he argued in favor of secession, which was also unconstitutional because secession is usually based on the premise of a light and transient cause versus a long train of usurpation and trampling of natural rights. In other words, you cannot stomp your feet, take your toys home, and say you do not like something and will not follow it.

    One of the reasons why nullification and secession took hold in the country during the years leading up to the Civil War is because of Senator John Calhoun and his speaking ability where he established a new basis for the founding of our country by rejecting the Federalist papers and Publius’s argument of an energetic but limited government. He disagreed with the idea that the government was established to protect natural rights and that no state is sacred. He also separates the Declaration from the Constitution and says the Constitution is a standalone document. This is an incorrect interpretation because you cannot have the Constitution without the Declaration. Calhoun believes there is a constitutional right to nullify and secede only because he interpreted the Constitution as a standalone document and a compact between the states. This is again incorrect because the Constitution is a compact between the people of the states and not the state governments. We know this because the preamble of the Constitution states, “We the people,” not “We the states of the United States.”

    Calhoun makes his argument because of the Missouri Compact, a compact between the states. Northerners are saying that Congress has the right to make laws outlawing slavery. However, Southerners cite the Northwest Ordinance (ironically written by a slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson), stating that while it may allow Congress to legislate in the Northwest Terrority (as it was then known), it was only done by a compact of the states. It was not an actual act of the National government. So, while this instance goes directly to the concept of slavery, one could make the same argument today on a different issue and say a law originating in a way that it should under the Constitution is wrong because we disagree with it, and therefore, we can nullify it.

    So, where does this argument come from? Does it come when there is a belief that all three branches have conspired to ignore the will of the people, like what happened with the Alien and Sedition Act, or when sections disagree on an issue such as slavery and what recourse do the people have when their rights are tramped on? The view is that there is no recourse through the Judiciary because if all three branches have conspired, then the Supreme Court cannot be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. However, this is where people are wrong because the Supreme Court is not the final arbitrator of the Constitution, but it does play a crucial role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

    Where does that leave the people? If they feel that the Judiciary is not an option, then elections are the next option. Hamilton suggests in Federalist 1 that it is up to people to reflect and choose. He states:

    It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or are they forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.

    The people’s remedy to unjust laws is elections, a process that has proven successful time and again. We saw this during the healthcare debates in 2010 and, most recently, in response to the overreach of the Biden administration. Each time, the people, through the election process, restored balance to all three branches, giving us hope that our voices will be heard.

    Therefore, it is our responsibility, as citizens who want a government that truly represents us, to keep a check on government overreach. It is not through nullification or secession (unless there is a long train of abuses and usurpations) it is through the judiciary. If they cannot be trusted, it is through the election process. Our Founders entrusted us with the power to reclaim our country, and we have exercised this power countless times. It seems we did so as recently as the 2024 election, and if necessary, we can do it again in two years.

    The Legislative Review -ARTICLE 1, by Curtis Courtney and Doug Kelsay

    The Legislative Review -ARTICLE 1, by Curtis Courtney and Doug Kelsay

    February 5, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    Since the days of Noah (or at least just after the Civil War), Texas was run by Democrats.  Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president and thus the states of the south consistently selected Democrat representatives and executive leaders. Texas was part of the “Solid South”, a Democrat stronghold. That changed starting in the early 1990’s and was evident in the mid 1990’s when George Bush was elected Republican Governor. The Texas House and Senate both transitioned to a majority Republican in the 78th Congressional session in 2003. By the early 2010’s Texas was solidly Republican. Many politicians that had long ran as Democrats transitioned to running as Republicans. Some were truly conservative and aligned with Republican values but many simply found it expedient to change color of their coat to maintain power.

    During this transition House Speakers, starting most notably with Speaker Straus, appointed Democrats as chairs of Committees. But as Republicans grew in numbers and power, subsequent speakers did not diminish the number of Democrat chairs. This caused a rift between the Republican voters and their elected legislators.

    Q: What defines a Republican versus a Democrat? A: Their Party Platform and the resulting Legislative Priorities.

    Things came to a head when the speaker of the 88th TX House, Dade Phelan, not only appointed Democrat chairs but actively fought legislative priorities of the Republican Party of Texas (RPT), Governor Abbott and Lt. Gov Patrick. He also led a Democrat inspired “lawfare” campaign against Attorney General Ken Paxton which included sneaky moves in changing the impeachment rules at the start at the 88th Session. The 88th Legislature was called back not once, not twice, but an unprecedented third time to work the key priorities of the Governor. Under Speaker Phelan and his Democrat chairs, they successfully avoided addressing these priorities. As a result, the average Republican voter became livid and outraged because nothing important was getting done.

    This long history lead delegates of the RPT State convention to change RPT rules so they could be used to force the Republican house members to support the Legislative Priorities. The rules were changed to allow censure which is the threat of not allowing a representative to run as a Republican.

    In order for the 89th Legislature to implement the Legislative Priorities, the House Republicans, wishing to exert their majority and the desire to align with the Legislative Priorities, held a caucus on December 7, 2024 to select a speaker who would not appoint Democrat chairs. Of the 88 Republican house members that were there to start the Caucus, 26 elected Republicans, including Stan Gerdes, walked out of that Caucus meeting before it was concluded and a Speaker selected.

    The Bastrop County Republican Party (BCRP) held a meeting on December 21, 2024 to discuss the actions of our Representative, Stan Gerdes, who was one of the 26 elected representatives who walked out on the Republican Caucus. The BCRP examined the options open to them. A committee was directed to articulate our response to his actions. The BCRP reconvened on December 30, 2024 and approved the response which came in the form of a resolution condemning his actions and reminded him of his obligation as a Republican Representative. To read the full resoluiton, click here 

    Our next article will be the results of the first day of the 89th Legislature which occurred on January 14, 2025.

    Written by: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

    Federalist 51 by Dianna Greenwood

    Federalist 51 by Dianna Greenwood

    January 30, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in /

    Can one branch of government claim authoritative legitimacy over another branch of government?

    Publius (James Madison) tackles this question in Federalist 51 by outlining how government is divided to avoid the scenario of one branch of government claiming absolute authority over another branch of government. Federalist 51 also extended Federalist 10, which spoke of factions. Here, Publius expands many aspects of his arguments in Federal 10, which focused on extended factions, and he goes back to that argument while also informing the reader on how the distinct powers of each branch prevent another branch from claiming authoritative legitimacy over another branch.

    Publius firmly establishes at the beginning of the piece that to maintain a partition of government; it is important that “the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”[1] Our Constitution does this in several ways, such as allowing an executive to veto legislation and appointing a lifetime position to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Constitution lays out a series of steps for the election of the President and members of Congress. The President is elected every four years, while Representatives are elected at two-year intervals and Senators 6 six-year intervals, with The Senate, divided into thirds so that one-third of the Senators are up for election every two years. By making the Supreme Court a lifetime appointment, a justice is not continuously beholden to the President who appointed him. Finally, in order for the appointment to be final, the Senate must consent to it.

    Publius continues his argument by noting that because of its specific requirements, the judicial branch’s selection of judges by the people would be impractical; therefore, we may not get the best-qualified judges if it were up to the voters. Since the appointment to the judiciary is permanent and would exceed the term of the executive branch appointing them, dependency on the executive branch is destroyed.

    However, it is not only through staggered elections or permanent appointments that each branch would stay independent but also through the specific jobs they must perform, which are then checked by other branches. Here, Publius issues his famous quotes: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” and “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” This means that each branch must check itself and be checked by the other branches because human nature is such that abuses would arise if no checks were in place. For example, the House originates legislation, and the Senate then carefully deliberates on each piece of legislation and then sends it back to the House or lets it die. Once all the differences are worked out, the legislation goes to the President, who either signs into law or vetoes. If the President vetoes the legislation, Congress has a certain number of days to override the veto. Finally, the people can oppose the legislation through the courts, which would review it and determine if it is constitutional or not. Now the court could strike down a law, which doesn’t necessarily mean that the executive is forced to listen to them because it is a separate branch. However, tradition has necessitated that the executive adheres to the judicial decision.[2]  That being said, it does not mean that the Supreme Court is the final authority because Congress can go back and revise the law, pass it, and send it to the President again in a different format.

    There is yet another avenue available to the people to check the national government: our compound republic, which is divided into two main governments (national and state), with one being divided even further. The state governments are also elected by the people and not appointed by the national government. Furthermore, within the states, there is a further division of government at the county and local levels, which have their own distinct functions. Each has a check on the other level and the national government. The state generally checks on our national government by using the court system or the compact provision of the Constitution. These are small but significant steps the Founders worked into our national government to slow down and control the potential abuse of government.

    Publius touches on factions again, but I will not go into further discussion on this subject other than to highlight religion in America and why we do not have a state-sponsored religion. Here, Publius makes his firmest argument for factions in an expanded republic because of the many different religious sects in the United States – even in 1787. The national government’s authority is “derived from, and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or the minority, will be in little danger from the interested combinations of the majority.” Therefore, religious freedom prevails because of the expansion of the republic, the variety of religious sects, and the differences within those sects across the country. This litmus test can be applied to many other factions or specific interests a government would undertake. Because of the divisions of government, the divisions within each branch make it difficult for the majority to oppress the minority. This does not mean that it has not been attempted, but that different branches of government can tamp it down.

    Publius ends the paper by noting, “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society,” all means of obtaining it have been instilled in the Constitution as best as possible to ensure fairness for the people of the United States. He ended the paper with the example of Rhode Island being an independent country and a limited sphere, highlighting the ability of a majority to take over and oppress the minority. However, this is less likely to happen with the expanded sphere of the United States and its division of government under the newly created Constitution. The larger sphere and division of government are more practical in ensuring the liberties of its citizens.

     

    [1] Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, James Madison, George W Carey, and James Mcclellan. 2001. The Federalist: The Gideon Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Pg 267

    ‌

     

    [2] “Executive Enforcement of Judicial Orders | Federal Judicial Center.” Fjc.gov, 2020, www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders.

    Verified by MonsterInsights