Good Texas Common Sense
A series of articles concerning what the new government of the Republic of Texas should be and do, what the Constitution for the Republic of Texas should be and say, and the philosophical (common sense) reasons behind these statements.
Copyright at Common Law 1996, Donald Dale Henson, sui juris. This article may be reproduced and distributed using any media as long as the article, the author's name, and this copyright notice remain together and unchanged.
Article 7
Why Do We Need a Legislature?
by Donald
Dale Henson, sui juris
Why DO we need a legislature anyway? Every government short of a totalitarian dictatorship has one. Many people involved in restoring the government of the nation of Texas think that we have to have one. Most people cannot even conceive of a government without one. But WHY do we need one? Perhaps looking at the Constitution For the united States can give us some insight.
Other than some powers that apply to the government only, such as impeachments and internal rules of procedure, the powers of the US Congress are contained in Article I, Section 8. Depending on how you count them, there are either eighteen or twenty-one specific powers. All of them can be summarized in the last one listed:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
If you eliminate the language intended to limit the powers of the federal government to specific items, you end up with the basic purpose of all legislatures: To make Laws. So the question becomes, "Why do we need laws?"
Laws tell us what to do and what may happen to us if we fail to do what the law says. In a republic based on the Common Law, everyone knows, or should know, that you can do anything you want as long as you don't initiate force or fraud and in the process cause damage to another person and as long as you do what you contract to do. You also know that you are probably going to have to pay restitution in accordance with the judgment of a Common Law jury. That's pretty simple. What could laws passed by a legislature (statutory laws) do that the Common Law does not do? Mostly, they make things more complicated than they need to be. And they tend to start 'stretching' the meaning of the words in the constitution so that 'good' laws can be enacted. (Otherwise, how would we know that our legislators are doing their job?)
So do we need laws? Yes. Do we need statutory laws? Not if we base our republic on the Common Law. If we have no need for statutory laws, why do we need a legislature?
Well, I suppose it's possible that some unforeseen circumstance could arise that would require a different law. (But I can't think of what that circumstance might be.) And legislatures are charged with keeping an eye on the other government departments to make sure they don't exceed their constitutional authority. (But I don't think they do a very good job of that.) Legislatures approve or disapprove of treaties, international agreements, etc but this is merely making law in the international arena. (And is a way to bypass constitutional restrictions on statutory law.) If we don't have a legislature, how would we fill these functions?
If some unforeseen circumstance arises that requires a new law, we could do one of two things: 1) We could wait until some cases have been tried by Common Law juries and see if a consensus emerges or 2) we could initiate a constitutional amendment to account for the new circumstance. In neither case do we need a legislature.
To keep an eye on the government departments to make sure they don't exceed their constitutional authority, we can create the position of Auditor. This person could, of course, do as bad a job as the legislature in this regard (it would be difficult to do a worse job than the current US Congress) but it would be much easier to lay blame on and replace a single individual than an entire legislature since it would not be possible for an individual to hide behind the 'will of the majority' and thus escape responsibility for failure to do the job. In this sense, a single individual Auditor is better than a legislature.
As for approving treaties and international agreements, why not refer them directly to the citizens? After all, a legislature is supposed to represent the citizens. Can not the citizens represent themselves? Who better to decide the fate of the republic than the citizens of the republic?
It appears that we can perform all the traditional functions of a legislature without having a legislature. By not having a legislature, we make it more difficult for the government to pass laws that increase the government's power and we save all that money. What money? Why the salaries of the legislators, the cost of elections, and the money required to support all the 'good' laws the legislators pass to show how good a job they are doing. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Does this make sense? Good Texas Common Sense?
Copyright at Common Law, West El Paso Information Network, 1996