Commentary - Bastrop County Republican Party

Civility and Politics – By Dianna Greenwood

March 7, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Contributing Writer

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

February 22, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Contributing Writer

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

February 13, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / County Chair / Legislative Review

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

February 8, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Contributing Writer

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

February 5, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / County Chair / Legislative Review

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 78^th 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 88^th 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 88^th Session. The 88^th 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 89^th 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 89^th Legislature which occurred on January 14, 2025.

Written by: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

Federalist 51 by Dianna Greenwood

January 30, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Contributing Writer

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.

Extension of the Sphere, by Contributing Writer Dianna Greenwood

January 23, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Commuity / Contributing Writer

Why does the Constitution promote the extension of the sphere of influence and is this good for the country and for free people? It is a question worth asking in this day and age when so many of our young people are being influenced by Marxist and socialists who deem our form of government as reprehensible. A government that by its very definition is racist towards the less fortunate and minorities. I contend it is not because through its creation we have been able to avoid those sorts of governments which suppress freedom and cause more harm to the human condition.

Extending the sphere of influence in government is the real innovation of the American Constitution because it encourages growth in land mass and population of the country. It suppresses the influence of factions to cause disunity and eventual failure of the government. Finally, it allows liberty to be preserved for the betterment of the union and humanity.

An extended sphere is where a country is spread over a large area with a large number of people. Hamilton stated that it is “the consolidation of several smaller member states into a one great confederacy.[1]” While he noted Montesquieu’s idea for a small extended sphere is in proportion to its dimensions, Hamilton said that it doesn’t work in America because of the size of the states in terms of area. Were we to follow Montesquieu’s recommendations, we really would be no better off than we were under Great Britain’s rule because monarchies could form, or we would be split into several small commonwealths that form rivalries with each other. Therefore, the idea of extending the sphere is to amass land and more people to reduce those jealousies that manifest themselves into factions. If we don’t, then powerful factions can form which would be detrimental to the preservation of the union.

Extending the sphere is a way to suppress factions from producing “instability, injustice, and confusion[2]” which can lead us down the road to disunion and tyranny. Factions in a small republic “whether amounting to a majority or a minority[3]” can be adverse not only to people’s rights but also to the community because they are motivated by their passion for a single interest regardless of whether or not it is good for the community. Since people have different interests and opinions, the strength of factions is reduced when the number of individuals in a country increases. As such when the sphere is extended, by population, it becomes less likely a strong faction will form. In addition, when the populations are spread out over a large area, the people will naturally form different interests, even if they perform the same type of job. For example, a farmer in New England raising cranberries is not going to have precisely the same concerns or interests that a farmer in Georgia raising cotton is likely to have. In this example both individuals have a general farming interests, but the interests are vastly different making it harder for a large cohesive faction to form and suppress the interest of non-farmers in the union.

In addition to removing majority or minority factions which oppress the interest and/or rights of the community; extending the sphere forces the government to grow from a direct democracy to a representative government. If we are spread out over a larger area it makes it hard for everyone to directly participate in government. Not only does this prevent majority factions from forming but, as Madison notes in Federalist Paper 51, “by comprehending in a society so many separate disruptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole improbably if not impractical,” prevents heredity or self-appointed rule. Therefore, the extended sphere lessens the opportunity for tyranny by breaking up majority factions into diverse factions spread over a large area.

Good government is ensured with representatives rather than direct democracy, where the self-appointed ruler can rise out of mob rule. Liberty is preserved because a majority or minority faction is not suppressing the rights or interest of the community because the community is now composed of a large number of people over large areas. Finally, the union is preserved because liberty has been preserved through the prevention of large factions by the extension of the sphere through land acquisition and population growth.

[1] Federalist Paper #9, Gideon Edition, pg. 30 Paragraph 1

[2] Federalist Paper #10, Gideon Edition, pg. 42 Paragraph 1

[3] Federalist Paper #10, Gideon Edition, Pg 43 Paragraph 1

14th Amendment: Birthright Citizenship or Freedom from Slavery? – by Dianna Greenwood

January 10, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Commuity / Contributing Writer

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Birthright citizenship or anchor babies have been in the news for many years now, causing a multitude of controversy because we know that there are pregnant women crossing the border to have their children in the United States and therefore claim residency. This has been fueled by a lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and by the Democrat Party who are courting voters to turn our constitutional republic into a pure democracy.

The use of the 14^th amendment to establish birthright citizenship for the babies of illegal immigrants is a misuse of an amendment that was passed as part of the Reconstruction Amendments that directly affected Black Americans after the end of the Civil War. Historically speaking the Reconstruction Amendments consist of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 13^th amendment ended slavery in the US but was riddled with problems such as enabling criminal punishments of involuntary servitude and the establishment of black codes because of its ambiguous wording.[1] Thus the 14^th amendment was introduced to counter the problems arising from the 13^th amendment.

In its entirety, the 14^th amendment compromises five sections and more words than any other amendment. It was conceived by John Bingham of Ohio who believed that Reconstruction should place “limitations upon the States in favor of the personal liberty of all citizens of the Republic.”[2] His initial proposals in February of 1866 were considered to be too sweeping and would not be implemented. This would result in the first Civil Rights Act dubbed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Later, they returned to the idea of a constitutional amendment when President Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act. The Congressional record at the time showed the first section caused rigorous debate much like today and the other sections of the amendment are direct answers to confederacy issues such as repayment of debt, eliminating the 3/5^th clause, leadership until the 5^th section which deals with the assertion of congressional enforcement power.

Our concern in this paper is Section One and whether or not it grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. First, we need to look at the original intention of the amendment writers. Their intention was to ensure that black citizens who were born in this country prior to its enactment were citizens now rather than slaves. The intent of the first sentence is to overturn the horrendous Dred Scott Decision of 1857 which stated that Black slaves were not eligible for citizenship even though they were born in the several states. The amendment continues on to say “and are subject to the jurisdiction there of” would also be citizens of the United States. Prior to the implementation of the Constitution citizens of one state were aliens in another state as each state (colony) at the time had a sovereign right to establish their own laws. Upon the ratification of the Constitution, this changed and “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Thereby making each citizen of a state also a citizen of the United States at large and naturalization in each state unnecessary.

This intent of creating citizenship for former black slaves is further stated by Senator Howard in his speech introducing the 14^th amendment to the 39^th Congress. He specifically states “This abolishes all class legislation in the states and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental right as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.”[3] He and others who were proponents of the amendment were specifically talking about the injustices that had been faced by the black man (peoples) since the end of the Civil War. Therefore, it ended the practice of denying citizenship, as laid out by the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, on ethnicity. As such it had nothing to do with immigration and conferring citizenship upon the offspring of those who illegally entered this country. But instead, it was intended to grant citizenship to Black Americans who had been born in this country prior to 1866.

Now there will be people who argue against this and will use other sections of Senator Howard’s speech to prove they meant to apply it to everyone under every circumstance. Such as when he states, “It will, if adopted by the states, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction.”[4] Again we are injecting modern beliefs rather than looking at what they meant and the circumstances at the time of the amendment’s introduction. But more specifically the writers of the amendment use the word “citizen” to describe who is protected under our laws and Constitution. So, the question becomes can a child born of illegal aliens be a citizen when the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country? The 14^th amendment doesn’t address that, and it was never intended to address that issue so it should not be used as justification for granting citizenship to children born in this country to illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live here. Let me make this clear least someone accuse this writer of racism due to the large influx of illegals and anchor babies who are Hispanic – this opinion is colorblind. The use of the 14^th amendment to justify granting citizenship to the children of any illegal alien regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or ethnicity is wrong and counter to the intent of the 14^th amendment.

The debate over the 14^th amendment is a prime example of why Civics and historically accurate history should be taught in schools across this nation.

[1] Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 14 – “Citizenship, Equal Protection, Apportionment, and War Debts” | Ronald Reagan

[2] The 14th Amendment: A “Mini-Constitution” | Teaching American History

[3] Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment | Teaching American History

[4] Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment | Teaching American History

Electoral College: Is it Archaic or a protection of our Constitutional Republic? – by Dianna Greenwood

January 4, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Commuity / Contributing Writer

Every four years we hear the same hyperbole regarding the Electoral College: it is archaic and should be abolished the president should be elected directly by the people like our Congressman and Senators because we need to listen to the will of the people. These arguments are superficial in their nature and never really get down to the real intentions of those who make this argument because their intentions are based in emotion rather than reason. When we hear arguments such as these, you better believe that the individual making them has limited understanding of why the Electoral College was established and is easily led by leaders looking to gain their own power. We have the Electoral College for a simple reason, the majority is wrong at times, and we have definitely seen this over the last 50 years.

So, what led the delegates in the Constitutional Convention to choose this method of electing a president? It happened over a period of time during the convention starting on June 9, 1787, when a motion to have the President elected by State Legislatures failed. Then on June 18^th, Alexander Hamilton made his famous proposal of a President for Life because there had been a stalemate on the issue. He leaves shortly after this to return to New York. His proposal is defeated but it engages the delegates to have real and substantial discussions on this issue and from July – August of 1787, we see it heavily discussed, and it is during this time the Brearly Committee is formed. Finally on September 4, 1787, the Committee makes its recommendation of an Electoral College.

To understand the four distinct timelines in the creation of the Electoral College we must first look to what led to the first motion being defeated on June 9, 1787. Edmond Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan on May 29^th which called for the creation of a National Executive that would be elected by Congress. After initial consideration of this proposal which also included a one 7 year term with no ability to be re-elected, the delegates decided they wanted to discuss other issues which was how to elect a president. This is where the motion to have an executive elected by state legislatures came about and was defeated on June 9, 1787.

From here until June 18^th, the delegates were at a standstill on this subject until Alexander Hamilton stands up and proposes a President for life. Many in the convention are shocked and surprised by this but it is now known he is basing this proposal on Washington. There is some question as to whether he really believed in this or if it was a ploy to get the delegates working as the convention was unproductive at that moment. The speech or theatrics worked, and the delegates began to work together again. In fact, Hamilton will write Federalist 68 supporting the establishment of an Electoral College.

Beginning in July of 1787, the delegates revisit the executive branch again and agree to several issues including that the executive is elected by the national legislature. By August they have defeated four modes of electing the president and settle on sending it to a committee. The Brearly committee of ten is formed to settle outstanding issues. James Madison and James Wilson, two prominent members of the delegation, are part of this committee. They proposed that the President have its own electoral base, but Roger Sherman believed that the state legislatures had to elect the president to keep him honest. Roger Sherman was from one of the small states so this would have been a critical issue to him. A deal is finally reach, whereby the amount of representation in the Senate and Congress that each state has will determine the final electoral vote because the President must represent the entire nation. The delegates decided this was the best way to preserve our partly federal/partly national concept of government they were implementing. It was decided that Congress can regulate the election, but the states can regulate how their electoral votes are cast. This method was presented to the full convention on September 4, 1787, and was accepted by the delegates.

Now there are limitations to who can and cannot be an elector. For instance, a senator or representative cannot be an elector, nor can anyone be holding an office of trust. Alexander Hamilton would write:

“They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to the immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons or the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.”

The result of establishing the Electoral College is it is reflective of the sense of the whole nation rather than a few select states. If we had left it to the states, then only a certain number of states would always choose the president, and the urban areas would always prevail. This way the election is spread out more evenly across the country and no specific faction can control the outcome. It is not completely republican, but it is close enough.

And finally, the best part about the electoral college is that it is a temporary body that disbands after the election every four years and is not made up of the same people every presidential election cycle. In fact, the system is so good that only two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives. Once in 1800 and again in 1824. Additionally, we have only come close to changing this historic way of voting for the president once and that was in the 91^st Congress where a resolution was presented that proposed direct election of the President. The House passed it while the Senate defeated it, and this is also another reason we have two houses to deliberate our legislation.

The Founding Fathers were truly the most gifted generation Americans have ever seen as their foresight has saved us many a time from an oppressive government. Let us continue to uphold that tradition and make sure the next generations are steeped in American history from our beginning. It is the only way to ensure their magnificent work continues to protect the liberty that man deserves.

Federalist #84 Specifically the Need for a Bill of Rights

December 5, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in Commentary / Commuity / Contributing Writer

The idea of a Bill of Rights was particularly important during the Ratification of the Constitution but there were some (Federalists) who held that it was not necessary because the Constitution itself was a limiting document therefore the national government was not in a position to take rights away. The Anti-Federalist argued for a Bill of Rights and made this a condition of ratification. They felt that even if the Constitution were a limiting document, it would not stop a right from being taken away.

In Essay #84 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argues that a Bill of Rights is not needed in the Constitution using a specific argument: “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws and TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty than any it contains.” While the argument is true in some respects, it is also false in the extent that the Constitution is both limiting and unlimited depending on the conditions present at the time a right would come under question.

Hamilton is correct that habeas corpus is protected unless there is a crisis, but it is the second and third part of this particular argument that fails to protect the rights of citizens.

The second part of the argument, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, is questionable on whether this stops the usurpation of rights by the government. I contend it is not a mechanism to stop the usurpation of rights because an ex post facto law only prevents a person from being prosecuted for an act that was not a crime at the time said act occurred. It doesn’t prevent the government from suppressing rights in the future. It doesn’t present an absolute protection of individual rights. For example, without the second amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms, Congress could make a law prohibiting private ownership of a gun on the basis that people commit murders with guns and for the common defense of the union, we have to confiscate all privately owned guns. Ex post facto would say prosecution of those individuals who own guns prior to the effective date of the law is unlawful but it doesn’t prevent a right from being taken away. Since the Constitution has unlimited powers with regards to common defense, government officials could use that loophole to increase their powers over the people. Without some types of prohibitions, the government can look to increase their power by making it more difficult for the individual to protect themselves from government overreach because rights taken away will be done in the name of common defense.

Continuing on to the third part of this particular passage, Hamilton makes his argument that the prohibition of titles of nobility protects the rights of the people. Hamilton knows that the people fear the implementation of an aristocracy because of the inherently oppressive nature of that system, and he assures the people that because the constitution prohibits this, no perceived rights will be taken away. However, Hamilton is a student of human behavior and has spoken in previous papers of ambitious or rapacious men who will do what they can to obtain power. The question now becomes, do they need that title of nobility to take away rights? The answer is a resounding no; all they would need is a perceived crisis to use the common defense loophole to gain more power over the individuals. As Hamilton has pointed out on several occasions, in past papers, human nature is such that passion for some objective will lead to the ambitious pursuit of that objective (no title of nobility necessary) to fulfill the ambition of attaining power. Hamilton knows this but it appears he chooses to ignore it and only focuses on the people’s fear of an aristocracy. Could this be because his own personal preference is towards a strong central government with a monarch like executive?

Hamilton, who by nature is biased towards a strong central government, understands the importance of unlimited powers, and does not want that subverted by a bill of rights which could bring the government to a halt when dealing with different issues. But without some type of delineated rights, a distrust of government could form and manifest itself in such a way as to cause the creation of factions (who distrust government) to spring up and threaten the stability of the union. This could ultimately lead to disunion and anarchy which is antithetical to the intent of the founders – Hamilton included. Hamilton must know this and yet he refuses to acknowledge that such a thing could happen.

Hamilton’s opposition to a bill of rights is perplexing, especially in light of his ultimate objective which is the preservation of the union and the assurance of prosperity. Ultimately his opposition to the Bill of Rights would be a moot point because his Federalist Papers co-writer, James Madison, would assume the issue in Congress and worked to get a Bill of Rights passed. In the years that followed, rights have been protected because of the passage of the Bill of Rights most recently with the Bruen decision regarding the right to bear arms.

Dianna Greenwood began her service in the Marine Corps in September of 1995 and graduated from boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina in December of 1995 and was then stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland until April 1997 when she was honorably discharge due to medical issues.

After leaving the Marine Corps, Greenwood earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Arizona in 1999. She then received her Master’s in American History and Government from Ashland University in Ashland Ohio in 2016.

Dianna Greenwood has a long career in local and political activism both in Ohio and in Texas. In Ohio, she became the leader of New American Patriots, the local tea party in Ashland OH. She served in that position from 2009 to 2013 before deciding to focus on continuing her education. Prior to her involvement in the tea party, she had worked on the 2004 presidential campaign in Stark County along with helping on smaller local campaigns. In 2010, she was the primary campaign manager for Matt Miller who ran in the OH 16th Congressional District. Subsequently she has worked on a variety of campaigns here in TX with all but one of her candidates winning their elections.

Upon moving to Texas in June of 2015, Dianna Greenwood volunteered at the Bastrop County Historical Society Museum prior to getting involved in local politics. She has served locally in several current and former capacities such as Chairman of the Bastrop County Republican Party, Grassroots Director of the Bastrop County Young Republicans, Board Member of the Central Texas Republican Assembly, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee for the Bastrop Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Red, White and Blue Banquet Committee, a member of the Bastrop Education Foundation Committee and a member of the Bastrop Historical Society Museum’s gift shop committee.

In addition to her many activities Greenwood worked as an adjunct professor at Concordia University for 2 years teaching American History and then worked for a local law firm before leaving to work as the Executive Director of the Texas State Rifle Association.

She has a daughter, Katharine, and enjoys traveling to historic sites around the country with her.

Category: Commentary

THE CLOCK'S A TICKIN!

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