As we approach the next election cycle, the Texas Liberty Journal remains dedicated to providing our readers with comprehensive and insightful coverage of the political landscape. Our commitment is to ensure that you are well-informed about the key players and pivotal races that will shape the future of our great state. This election season promises a dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates, each bringing their unique perspectives and policy priorities to the forefront. Our analysis will cover every U.S. House District in Texas, offering a detailed look at the competitive spirit driving these races.

In the upcoming months, we will delve into the vibrant competition unfolding across the state, highlighting the intense battles between incumbents and challengers, as well as introducing you to fresh faces entering the political arena.

Through our detailed coverage, we aim to provide context and clarity on the issues at stake, the candidates’ platforms, and the potential impact of these elections on both state and national levels. Stay tuned to the Texas Liberty Journal for in-depth reporting and analysis, as we navigate this crucial election season together.

In a stunning display of disregard for the principles they claim to uphold, five Texas Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have betrayed their constituents by voting in favor of a ‘stopgap’ spending bill that does nothing but kick the can down the road. The recent passage of the short-term funding extension, also known as the continuing resolution (CR), raises serious questions about the commitment of these representatives to responsible governance.

The CR, which passed with a narrow margin, is nothing short of a legislative cop-out. Instead of addressing the core issues and fulfilling their duty to pass the necessary spending bills for the fiscal year 2024, these Republicans chose the path of least resistance, allowing the government to limp along with temporary measures until March.

One must question the wisdom of this decision, especially when considering the bill’s implications. The CR, passed 314 to 108, extends funding deadlines to March 1 and March 8. It was pushed forward by House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, despite the reservations of House Republicans.

Congress has been passing CRs to avoid government shutdowns since the end of September, failing to pass 12 annual spending bills for the 2024 fiscal year. The stopgap bill was passed before funding would have been cut off for agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department and Transportation Department on Friday. The rest of the government, including the Defense and State Departments, had a deadline of February 2.

The $1.66 trillion piece of legislation will punt the fight over government spending into early March, after being signed into law by President Joe Biden. It’s worth noting that this was not a bipartisan effort to address fundamental budget issues; rather, it was a last-minute scramble to avert a government shutdown.

These Texas Republicans, including John Carter, Dan Crenshaw, Monica De La Cruz, Jake Ellzey, and the retiring Kay Granger, voted in favor of a bill that not only fails to provide stability and predictability for the nation’s finances, but gives away all leverage to accomplish conservative goals of stopping the flood of illegal aliens into the country. The CR perpetuates a cycle of short-term fixes, disregarding the need for comprehensive and responsible budgeting.

Among the five Texas Republicans who shamefully voted for this bill, all but one are facing primary challenges that deserve attention. Let’s shine a light on the individuals who failed to stand up for their constituents and opted for a temporary solution over principled governance. As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

1. John Carter (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 31): With five opponents in his primary – William Abel, John Anderson, Abhiram Garapati, Mack Latimer, and Mike Williams – Carter’s support for the CR raises concerns about his commitment to conservative values. Voters must question whether he is the right representative to champion their interests.
2. Dan Crenshaw (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 2): The ‘One-eyed McCain’ is facing a challenge from Jameson Ellis. Crenshaw’s vote for the stopgap bill does not align with the principles he claims to defend. Ellis and the voters of District 2 deserve a representative who will fight for their interests, not one who takes the easy way out.
3. Monica De La Cruz (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 15): De La Cruz, who is running against Vangela Churchill, has demonstrated a lack of commitment to the constituents of District 15. Churchill and voters deserve a representative who will prioritize their needs over political expediency.
4. Jake Ellzey (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 6): Ellzey, facing challenges from James Buford and Clifford Wiley, has disappointed voters by supporting a temporary fix instead of advocating for a comprehensive solution. District 6 needs a representative who will tackle the tough issues head-on.
5. Kay Granger (Tex. U.S. House Texas District 12): As a lame duck representative retiring from Congress, Granger’s vote for the CR leaves a stain on her legacy. Voters should question the wisdom of her decision, especially considering her imminent departure.

This stopgap spending bill is not a solution; it’s the same, “lucy and the football” tactic that establishment Republicans have been playing on the People for a long time. Forever promising to take action, then at the last minute pulling the ball away. The fact that these Texas Republicans chose to align themselves with a bill that fails to address the fundamental issues of the Republican party is a betrayal of the trust placed in them by their constituents… and their constituents have had enough.

As we head into primary season, voters must carefully consider whether these representatives truly reflect their values and priorities. The choices made in Washington impact every Texan, and it’s time to hold these individuals accountable for their actions.

The Texas Liberty Journal stands firmly against such political maneuvering at the expense of responsible governance. It is our hope that voters in these districts will make their voices heard in the upcoming primaries, demanding representatives who will genuinely advocate for their interests, not just when it’s convenient.

Unpacking the Colorado Supreme Court Ruling: Legal, Political, and Democratic Implications

Denver, Colorado – The recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump from the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024 has sparked a cascade of legal, political, and democratic discussions. This monumental ruling, detailed in a sprawling 213-page document (Case No. 235A300, Anderson v. Griswold), has become a focal point of scrutiny and debate, shedding light on the complexities of constitutional interpretation and the potential implications for political figures beyond the immediate case.

Understanding the Colorado Supreme Court: Appointment, Retention, and Criticism

All seven justices on the state’s high court were appointed by Democratic governors. Critics, including Trump’s campaign, have raised concerns about the potential for bias given the political affiliation of the appointing authorities.

In Colorado, justices serve an initial two-year term, after which voters decide their fate on a yes-or-no ballot for a subsequent 10-year term. This system differs from some states where justices run head-to-head against opposing candidates. Six of the seven Colorado justices have successfully navigated statewide retention elections to secure their positions, with the seventh, appointed in 2021, set to face the voters next year.

Examining the justices’ track records in retention elections provides additional context to the discussion. Justice Melissa Hart, a part of the majority opinion in the Trump case, was retained in 2020 with a significant 75% of the vote. Similarly, Justice Richard Gabriel secured a retention vote of 74% in 2018, Justice William Hood received 71% in 2016, and Justice Monica Márquez retained her position with 68% of the vote in 2014.

Among the dissenting justices, Chief Justice Brian Boatright earned a retention vote of 69% in 2014, while Justice Carlos Samour received 73% in 2020. Justice Maria Berkenkotter, also in dissent, assumed the bench in 2021 and is slated for election next year, along with Chief Justice Boatright and Justice Márquez, who are concluding their 10-year terms.

The Trump Case: A Deep Dive into Legal and Constitutional Dimensions

The heart of the matter lies in the court’s decision to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot. Delving into the majority opinion, Justice Melissa Hart and her colleagues concluded, that President Trump engaged in “insurrection”, as defined by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dispite the fact that Trump has not been charged, let alone convicted, of any such charge. Sadly, the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” is of no regard to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The dissenting justices, including Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justice Carlos Samour, expressed reservations about the potential political exclusion inherent in the majority’s interpretation. Their dissenting opinions raise fundamental questions about the broader implications of applying Section Three and whether the decision sets a precedent that could impact any Republican associated with January 6th or expressing dissent regarding the 2020 election results. As, according to the Colorado Supreme Court, there need be only an allegation of insurrection.

The decision not only affects the political fate of Donald Trump but has far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the delicate balance between upholding democratic values and addressing instances of perceived “insurrection”.

The Broader Debate: Constitutional Interpretation, Eligibility Criteria, and Democratic Principles

Beyond the specifics of the Trump case, the ruling has ignited a broader debate on constitutional interpretation, eligibility criteria for public office, and the preservation of democratic principles. Critics argue that the court’s decision, while rooted in a specific case, sets a precedent that could potentially be used to selectively exclude individuals based on their political beliefs.

The court’s reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 and its interpretation of terms like “insurrection” have come under scrutiny. Historical definitions, such as Noah Webster’s from 1860 states,

“Insurrection”: A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. It is equivalent to SEDITION, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from REBELLION, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one, or to place the country under another jurisdiction.

Noah Webster’s Dictionary from 1860

This provides some context, but the evolving nature of language and societal norms adds complexity to the application of such constitutional provisions. Democrats and media have accused just about every Republican in the country who has objected to the 2020 election as being, “Insurectionists”. Concerns are raised about the potential chilling effect on citizens who fear expressing dissenting opinions or participating in lawful protests. The delicate balance between safeguarding the electoral system’s stability and legitimacy and protecting individual rights to engage in political discourse becomes a focal point of discussion.

Looking Ahead: Future Elections, Legal Challenges, and Democratic Discourse

The implications of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling extend beyond the confines of the Trump case. The upcoming elections for the justices facing retention votes will be a critical aspect of future discussions in Colorado but other States are already looking to jump on the bandwaggon in their derranged and never ending hatred of Donald Trump.

Michigan, New Hampshire, Arizona have already started lawsuits to keep Trump off the ballot. In addition, other states such as West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada, Montana, Utah, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma and Wyoming are gearing up as well.

But it doesn’t end there. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Republican run states are sure to retaliate by finding ways to bar Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot. In many ways these states have an even better legal footing as more and more evidence is coming out that Joe Biden may, allegedly, be guilty of bribery and perhaps even treason. Since the standard of “Innocent until proven guilty” has been eliminated by the Colorado Supreme Court, there is no obligation to provide any evidence to support this accusation. The accusation is enough.

As this case progresses, it’s that it will reach the U.S. Supreme Court quickly. Colorado Election Law Section 1-4-1204(1) requires the Secretary to “certify the names and party affiliations of the candidates to be placed on any presidential primary election ballots” not later than sixty days before the presidential primary election. For the 2024 election cycle, that deadline is January 5, 2024.

There’s a collective hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will bring much-needed clarity and resolution. If there is a God in heaven, he will reach into their hearts and minds and help them make a decision that will put an end to the debate about whether or not Trump is elegible to run for President a 3rd time. There decision is a heavy one, for it could litterally be a catalist that could ignite a 2nd Civil War.