The Texas House recently debated House Bill 796, known as the Texas Sovereignty Act, a measure aimed at formalizing how Texas evaluates and responds to federal actions believed to exceed constitutional limits. Authored by Representative Cecil Bell, Jr., the legislation proposes the creation of a standing legislative committee that would review federal edicts and, through a majority vote of both legislative chambers and approval by the governor, determine whether Texas should comply with or decline to act upon a federal directive deemed unconstitutional.

Representative Bell explained during the floor debate that the current lack of a standardized process leaves Texas reacting inconsistently to federal orders without a clear constitutional rationale. The proposed committee, consisting of elected House and Senate members, would provide a structured method to assess constitutionality and document the reasoning behind the state’s actions for future generations. Although the debate on House Bill 796 did not specifically reference the COVID-19 pandemic, the broader concerns about unchecked federal executive actions echo frustrations many Texans experienced during national emergencies, when sweeping mandates and shutdowns were issued without thorough constitutional scrutiny. Bell emphasized that interpreting and defending the Constitution is not merely within the authority of Texas officials but is a core duty of their oath of office, requiring them to exercise independent constitutional judgment to protect the rights and liberties of the people they represent.

The bill faced pointed questions from Democratic members, who expressed concerns that allowing legislators without formal legal training to assess federal constitutionality could blur the lines between legislative and judicial authority. Bell countered that the Constitution was written in clear language accessible to all citizens and that elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution itself, not to interpretations imposed by the judiciary. He emphasized that officials have an independent responsibility to uphold the Constitution in their service to the people, ensuring that governmental power remains limited and accountable.

 

 

The Texas Sovereignty Act has been championed by advocates like Tom Glass of Texas Constitutional Enforcement, who argue that the measure restores foundational American principles of governance. Supporters of the Texas Sovereignty Act emphasize that their arguments draw from the original constitutional understanding reflected in the state ratification debates, where it was repeatedly affirmed that the federal government would be limited to its enumerated powers and that states retained the authority to intervene if those limits were exceeded. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison later reaffirmed this principle, arguing that preserving strong state authority was essential to safeguarding individual liberty and maintaining the decentralized framework of government promised to the people at the founding. For readers interested in exploring the original ratification debates, the full collection of state convention discussions is available through Elliot’s Debates at the Online Library of Liberty HERE.

The Texas Sovereignty Act is founded on the principle that power in the American system must remain decentralized, with sovereignty ultimately resting in the people of each state, as originally designed by the Constitution. Supporters argue that modern doctrines of expert supremacy, judicial supremacy, and federal supremacy have gradually shifted authority away from that original framework, and that measures like HB 796 are necessary to restore the intended constitutional balance.

The constitutional foundation for the Texas Sovereignty Act lies in the principles of limited government and federalism established in the Constitution and reinforced by the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people. Proponents argue that allowing the federal judiciary to unilaterally redefine constitutional meaning through evolving interpretations, rather than through the amendment process, has led to an erosion of those principles. They point to historical cases like Wickard v. Filburn as examples where judicial reinterpretation has vastly expanded federal authority beyond what the Constitution originally intended.

As House Bill 796 advances, it reignites longstanding debates over the balance of power between state and federal governments, the role of the judiciary, and the meaning of constitutional fidelity. Whether the Texas Sovereignty Act becomes law or not, its introduction underscores a growing movement within Texas to reassert its constitutional role as a co-equal sovereign within the American federal system.

 

 

 

Watch on Facebook

 

Floating Vimeo Video