The right of the Texas legislature to look to the general welfare of the citizens of the “free and independent” state of Texas may not be limited by any arbitrary federal bureaucracy that acts with power.
During the summer of 1788, the State of Virginia was debating the ratification of the new Federal Constitution. Patrick Henry expressed his grave concerns that a federal government may over time war against the sovereign authority of the states. He predicted that eventually the Federal Government would exceed its constitutional authority and assert a general power over the free and independent states, absorbing all state power under the arm of a central federal government. This usurpation of state authority was doomed to lead to either a break-up of the federal union between the states, or to a loss of state independence and the rights of the people to govern themselves according to the demands of their conscience and local jurisdictions.
In an effort to alleviate Henry’s concern and those of the assembly, Edmund Pendleton, a member of the Virginia Convention, assured the assembly:
“I believe I am still correct, and insist that, if each power is confined within its proper bounds, and to its proper objects, an interference can never happen. Being for two different purposes, as long as they are limited to the different objects, they can no more clash than two parallel lines can meet. . . ."
Of course Mr. Pendleton was correct: "If each power was restricted to the proper bounds of its constituted authority, there would be no conflict between federal and state power. However, this separation of state and federal power is only as strong as those who are given the high duty to maintain it.
Read the rest here.