They Said It Would Never Happen: The TEXIT Bill Is Filed, and the Meltdown Begins

The bill is filed. State Representative Bryan Slaton filed House Bill 3596 on March 6, the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo, and on the very morning of this stream it got its first reading on the House floor and was assigned to the State Affairs Committee. Daniel Miller walks through what that means and where the fight goes next, because the next move is not automatic. The committee chairman, Todd Hunter, still has to schedule the bill for a hearing, and the TNM is asking supporters to politely press him to do it without delay.

Then came the predictable reaction. Roughly 2,200 media mentions piled up in days, about half of them outlets recycling one another. The usual lines came back out, that Texas cannot do this, that the Civil War settled it, that Texas v. White makes it illegal. Miller has answered every one before, and when a USA Today fact checker reached out, the TNM sent a detailed takedown and offered to connect reporters with credentialed academics who could back it up. None took the offer. He also spends real time on State Representative Jeff Leach, who melted down on social media, branded the bill treasonous and seditious, and went after Slaton personally, including his wife, who came here legally and earned her citizenship. To Miller that is not a policy disagreement, and Leach owes Slaton and the people of Texas an apology.

The centerpiece is an extended clip from Dr. Brion McClanahan dismantling the legal argument. He notes that Leach keeps pointing to Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution while ignoring that the unionist language of the 1869 constitution was thrown out and replaced in 1876, and that Section 2 plainly reserves to the people the right to alter, reform, or abolish their government. He walks through reserved powers and the Tenth Amendment, makes the case that Texas v. White was a political decision rather than a legal one, and reminds everyone why Jefferson Davis was never actually tried for treason. As Miller puts it, it is one thing to hear it from him, and another to hear the same argument from an academic who has no stake in the outcome.