Texas House Bill HB47

Texas 2013 - 83rd 1st C.S.

Caption

Relating to the Texas Liberty Preservation Act; providing penalties.

Impact

If enacted, HB 47 would significantly impact how federal policies are implemented in Texas pertaining to civil liberties. It aims to prohibit state officials from enforcing federal laws related to indefinite detention and military tribunals, reinforcing the stance that such actions violate both state and federal constitutions. This could lead to a broader state-level refusal to comply with certain federal mandates, potentially limiting the federal government’s ability to operate within Texas in matters related to emergency detentions and military actions against civilians.

Summary

House Bill 47, known as the Texas Liberty Preservation Act, aims to invalidate certain federal provisions regarding the indefinite detention of individuals as stipulated in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. This legislation declares Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA as unconstitutional and illegal within the state of Texas. The bill asserts that such federal powers infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Texas and U.S. constitutions, particularly the right to due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It emphasizes the Tenth Amendment, stating that the federal government should only exercise powers explicitly delegated to it.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 47 is largely supportive among those who prioritize civil liberties, state sovereignty, and a strict interpretation of constitutional rights. Supporters assert that the bill protects Texans from potential abuses of power by the federal government regarding detention without trial. However, there is concern from opponents regarding the implications of such state-level defiance against federal law, fearing it could create legal uncertainties and conflicts between state and federal jurisdictions.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding the bill include discussions about the balance of state vs. federal power, and the potential consequences of invalidating federal laws. Critics argue that HB 47 could undermine national security efforts and impede the federal government's ability to protect citizens in times of crisis. Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize the necessity of protecting individual rights against perceived federal overreach, advocating for the principles of a limited government as per the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.