The POP ReportVol.1, #3
Chairman's Note: We at the Constitution Party of Texas recognize that one of the issues keeping Texas and America from its Glory, is the fact that our citizens have no understanding of the basics of law and government. We will be publishing 'Principles of Property' articles in an attempt to educate and activate our Texan citizens. Learn more about these Principles here Feel free to post comments about this article at our Forum here.

C.P. Texas Property Rights
Constitution Party of Texas
February 1, 2007

Texas Principles of Property Lesson
Principles of Property v. Pure Democracy
by Ron Avery

Principles of Property v. Pure Democracy related to:
sovereignty; prerogative and Immunity; eminent domain and the Trans Texas Corridor

Thomas Jefferson said that the concepts of individual liberty at the foundation of the Constitution of the united States of America were established by John Locke published in his First and Second Treatise of Government in 1689 and Algernon Sidney written in his Discourses on Government in 1683. Locke proved for all time that the sole purpose of government is the protection of property which he said consisted of one's life, liberty and possessions or estate. Presbyterian Reverend Samuel Rutherford, professor of theology at the University of Scotland, challenged the King's Sovereignty in his Lex Rex published in 1644. Locke's work was not signed by him for fear of the results. Sidney was beheaded in 1683 for placing sovereignty in the people and Rutherford died under house arrest pending indictment to appear at the tower of London for treason. Lex Rex was ordered to be burned through out the three Kingdoms.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and our forefathers established the united States of America it stood in bold rejection of the fraudulent doctrines of sovereignty in the hands of the monarch or government which they proved was created by and for the people. Now we know from Locke that governments are formed by the delegation of the authority in the people in a state of nature to protect their life, liberty and possessions with force. When the people created government they are sovereign over their own creation to make and unmake it if it becomes a threat to that which it was designed to protect. Sovereignty is authority of the creator over the created. God is first the creator of all things and the sovereign. Each person, likewise, has sovereignty over those things which they create. Individuals, acting together as a group, are sovereign over the government they create for the protection of their property. Each individual retains sovereignty over that which they create with others by contract.

Individuals give up the right to act as their own legislator, judge and executor upon creating government on the contractual condition and absolute guarantee that the government protects that individual's life, liberty and possessions against all transgressors including those in government. This giving up of authority to others is mistakenly seen by those who do not study these matters as the want of sovereignty. The sovereign is the beneficiary of the agent it creates. The individuals are the beneficiaries of the government it creates to protect them. When a government violates the contract which the individuals have created for their protection they again exercise their sovereignty to destroy that government which dissolves itself by its own miscarriages but continues to act as if it were a lawful entity.

The monarchs tried to short circuit the sovereignty of God granted to individuals to create government by saying that God granted sovereignty directly to Kings to punish the wickedness of mankind for their fall and sin in the garden or by attempting to say they were direct descendents of the first Kings anointed by God. Rutherford, Sidney and Locke proved to the world, at great price, that none of those arguments were true and that the people were sovereign over the governments they create even in regard to Biblical Old Testament monarchs. Therefore, the people are sovereign over the state they create; then, the state is sovereign over the federation of states they create. Yet these are conditional contracts that are dissolved upon the failure of the government to do that which it was created to perform. Each state is sovereign to every other state and their citizens. The Federal government is sovereign in relation to other nations and citizens of those nations. I, as a citizen of Texas cannot sue the state of Alabama or a citizen of Alabama in the courts of Alabama because I am not a citizen of Alabama and both the government and its citizens are sovereign in relation to me. Neither the state of Alabama nor a citizen of Alabama has authority to harm me as this is not a function of sovereignty as none have an authority to harm without just cause to delegate to another. But I should be able to bring a suit against a citizen of some other state in the union in the federal government as this is in one of the two main areas of federal responsibility and reasons for its construction, namely to handle interstate affairs as states would not be impartial in their own affairs and in foreign affairs so that all states could enjoy the protection of the group in relation to foreign nations. But the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a citizen of one state to sue another state or citizen thereof in the federal courts. This is a misconception of the levels of sovereignty and the purpose of a federation of states. I, as a citizen of Texas should be equal with a citizen of Alabama and should have standing in the federal court to bring suit if harmed and visa versa.

It gets worse, I, as a citizen of Texas, cannot sue Texas or any of its employees, officers, officials, agents or contractors for any injury done to me intentionally or otherwise in my life, liberty or possessions unless waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act of 1969 (TTCA) or by congressional resolution obtained prior to suit. The TTCA waived sovereign immunity for injury done with a motorized vehicle, malfunctioning personal property like a fountain pen or thermometer and premise defects like slippery floors. The TTCA also put a cap of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident on all claims. This judicial misconception is termed the "doctrine of sovereign immunity" by attorneys and judges. It is termed "bad social engineering and mythology" by scholars of the subject. It is the adoption of ancient monarchial common law and it should not exist in America as it was soundly defeated philosophically in 1689 and militarily defeated in 1783 at Yorktown. Read it all at This "doctrine" violates Article 1 Sections 2, 13, 17, 19 and 29 and Article 3 Section 1 and Article 16 Section 48 of the Texas Constitution. Acts of Congress cannot overturn provisions of the Constitution.

Eminent domain is the child of the "doctrine of sovereign immunity or prerogative." But this too is mere mythology by those that really study the subject. At least under eminent domain the government must purchase the property it wants to use or destroy. While under sovereign immunity the government kills, takes, and destroys etc., without recourse or payment. The proper use of eminent domain would be to use land for the temporary purpose of defense from attack by foreign nations. The injustice comes when the government wants to take land permanently for purposes other than the common defense like for the building of shopping malls (Kelo v. New London) and roads, especially toll roads, used for private gain by others as in the Trans Texas Corridor. The Texas Legislature has no authority to take land under condemnation and pay minimum values for land used for private gain. Why? Because you and I don't have that authority and if we don't have it we can't delegate it to our representatives in Austin. So the taking of land for the Trans Texas Corridor is theft and the use of it by private corporations and foreign monarchs (King of Spain) in exchange for 12 Spanish troops sent to Iraq to support Bush's bogus coalition is about as corrupt as a government can get. The citizens of Texas should turn out in mass and literally prevent the construction of the Trans Texas Corridor. Texans should make travel on the TTC as difficult to move as oil in Iraqi pipelines. How can we do that? Make sure you show up at the March 2, 2007 march on the Texas Capitol against the construction of the TTC. Democracy is limited by the authority held in the voter. The legislature has no authority to vote your land away to private corporations. The legislature has made themselves mere thieves.

Ronald F. Avery © All Rights Reserved

Was this message forwarded to you by a friend?
You can sign up for our Newsletter for FREE!
Go here:

Although we want to hear from you, please do not reply or send questions to this address. Simply direct your questions and correspondence to or go to our website at and contact us from there. Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you!

Help us keep the lights on. Click here to make a donation today.